Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Pakistan (Ratification: 1951)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

The Government communicated the following written information.

The provisions of this Convention were enforced in Pakistan through implementation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. However, after the 18th Constitutional Amendment the legislation under labour laws has been transferred to the provinces. All the provinces are in the process of adopting the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance. In order to cater for the need of registration of trade unions and federations; regulation of industrial relations; and resolution of industrial disputes in the federal capital and establishments in more than one province, a new law has been drafted and is in the process of promulgation. In reply to the observation with regard to the adoption of national and/or provincial legislations on trade unions and industrial relations, the Government stated that a Federal Law on industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations was drafted and consulted with all the social partners on 13 May 2011 in a tripartite meeting. The law caters for: registration of trade unions and federations; regulation of industrial resolutions; and resolution of industrial disputes in the federal capital and matters pertaining to more than one province. The law will be enacted after the budget session of the Parliament. The provinces are in the process of adopting the Industrial Relation Act, copies of which will be provided as they are finalized. In reply to the observation requesting the Government to provide information on the adoption of the draft Export Processing Zone (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, the Government stated that a copy will be provided when the rules have been finalized. In reply to the observation requesting the Government to provide information on the amendment of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, the Government stated that its repeal was approved by the Cabinet on 1 May 2010 and is being vetted by the Law and Justice Division before sending it to Parliament for enactment. Finally, in reply to the observation requesting the Government to indicate whether the Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act, was still in force, the Government stated that it had been repealed.

In addition, before the Committee a Government representative expressed his Government’s firm commitment to bringing the law and practice regarding the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining into line with international standards. Over the past few years, much progress had been made in improving the legislation and similar efforts were ongoing in other areas. The right to freedom of association and the right to organize had been secured and guaranteed under the Constitution. Immediately upon coming into power, the Government had taken measures, including repealing laws that were either restrictive or contrary to the promotion of trade unionism. During the last three years, the Government had promulgated the Labour Policy 2010 and had repealed Chief Executive Order No. VI in order to restore unions in Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), as had been requested by the Committee of Experts. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, had been repealed, and the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, promulgated. Trade union activities in the country had been restored. Furthermore, section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act had been repealed and workers of state corporations could now go to the labour court for redress of grievances. The repealing of section 27-B from the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 had also been initiated. The provisions of the Convention were being implemented through the enforcement of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. This Act had been in force until recently. However, following the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2008 more autonomy has been granted to the provinces, and this decentralization process, which had started in 2001, had made the implementation of the Industrial Relations Act more democratic and people-friendly. The current implementation mechanism was a three-tier system providing industrial machinery at federal, provincial and district levels to facilitate workers and employers to register their respective trade unions and federations and to resolve industrial disputes. Registration of trade unions had been institutionalized in such a way that they could be actively present in remote areas of Pakistan. Due to an efficient infrastructure for the implementation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, industrial peace had been observed in the country and no prominent strike had occurred despite privatization, retrenchment and other factors related to globalization.

Previously, the subject of labour had been the shared competence of the federal and provincial levels, pursuant to the Concurrent List of the Constitution, and the Industrial Relations Act had been implemented at the federal and provincial levels. In order to provide for greater autonomy, the 18th Constitutional Amendment had been introduced in 2010, and the subject of labour was transferred to the provinces. The provinces were now responsible for legislating and implementing all labour laws, including the Industrial Relations Act. Several provinces had already introduced industrial relations acts. New legislation for the regulation of industrial relations, the registration of trade unions and federations, and the resolution of industrial disputes at the federal level were at the final stage. In a meeting held on 3 May 2011, the Implementation Commission on Devolution had given concurrence to the draft Industrial Relations Act, 2011. A national level tripartite consultation on the draft had been held on 13 May 2011 to seek the views of the social partners. A select tripartite committee had held further deliberations on the draft bill on 16 May 2011. All efforts had been made to ensure that the new law would address the complications that had been created during the process of reform, particularly the problem accrued to national industry-wide trade unions. Due to the budget session, the Government had not been able to announce the promulgation of ordinances in this regard, but planned to do so shortly. The speaker indicated that cooperation with the ILO had made a positive contribution towards helping Pakistan in overcoming many of its problems. This cooperation was ongoing, and was presently directed towards labour law reform, employment generation through human resources development, expansion of social protection including the informal economy, and promoting tripartism. He concluded that there was full freedom in Pakistan to exercise the right to association as provided for in the Convention, and reiterated his Government’s commitment to upholding social justice through promoting workers’ welfare and granting freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Employer members noted the Government’s commitment to address and correct any law and practice that was not in line with the Convention. Since 1987, this was the 11th time the Committee had examined this case. The last examination dated from 2009 when the Committee had not been able to have an effective discussion because no copies of draft legislation had been provided to the Committee of Experts for its review and comment. This case concerned the difficulties in registering trade unions for the industries, acts of violence against protesters, night-time raids, arrests, and harassment of trade union leaders and members, as well as other violations of the Convention. As the Committee of Experts had pointed out, freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate that was free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of workers’ organizations. Basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression should be respected under the Convention. Although the Committee of Experts had asked the Government to report on these issues, they had not been addressed in the written information provided by the Government to this Committee.

The Employer members noted that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, had expired on 30 April 2010, which potentially had implications for national unions. According to the Government, the legislative gap was to be addressed by the provincial governments but in the meantime, the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 was again in effect. The issue was whether provincial law covering industrial relations would override the 1969 Ordinance, which was a national statute. The written information provided by the Government indicated that a new statute would need to be drafted addressing registration of trade unions and federations; the regulation of industrial relations; and the resolution of industrial disputes in the capital and businesses operating in more than one province. The Employer members advised the Government to consider submitting the draft legislation to the ILO before enacting the legislation so as to ensure that all relevant issues had been addressed. With respect to the adoption of rules in the export processing zones (EPZs) regarding the right to organize, the Employer members queried whether these rules would ever be enacted. The written information that had been provided by the Government stated that the Presidential Ordinance of 1999 had been repealed but information in this regard should be provided to the Committee of Experts, as this Ordinance restricted the right to strike. The Convention did not address this issue nor could the conclusions on this case. The Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. According to the Committee of Experts, a bill to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance had been submitted to Parliament. In conclusion, the Employer members requested the Government to provide further information to the Committee of Experts in 2011 on the status and likely timing of further steps towards enactment, and to provide a copy of the legislation that was being considered.

The Worker members stated that trade union rights had long been a critical issue in Pakistan. The application of the Convention in the country had been discussed by this Committee on numerous occasions, which demonstrated the persistence of serious problems. There were multiple violations of the Convention relating to the difficulties inherent in the system for the registration of unions, acts of violence against trade unionists, the refusal to recognize the right to strike of certain workers and a general climate in which freedom of association could not be exercised. Successive governments, whether civilian or military, had repeatedly promised that they would remedy the situation, but their promises had on each occasion been no more than empty words. The first problem concerned the right to associate freely, which was confined to a small minority of workers, while the great majority of workers did not have the right to join a union or to engage in collective bargaining. That was the case, among others, for workers employed in the railways, government services, hospitals, education, security services, EPZs and agriculture. The Committee of Experts had expressed concern regarding the 18th Constitutional Amendment, under the terms of which matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces. The outcome of the reform was already known. Indeed, the Factories Act, 1934, which provided for inspections of factories, had also been progressively delegated to the provincial governments and to the lower levels of the public authorities. The consequence was that labour inspections were almost never carried out, which meant that employers were free to flout the legislation on wages and conditions of work with impunity. A ruling by the Supreme Court of 2 June 2011 had abolished the role of the National Industrial Relations Commission on the ground that the respective federal legislation no longer existed. Consequently, trade unions operating at the federal level could no longer exist. The Government needed to make every effort to ensure that provincial legislation was brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. In the written information that it had provided to the Committee, the Government reported a Federal Law which appeared to contradict the comments of the Committee of Experts. However, it was not possible to be certain that this Law would effectively guarantee freedom of association in the absence of further information on the subject. The second problem concerned EPZs. The Government had previously indicated that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been drawn up in consultation with the concerned partners and that it would be submitted to Cabinet for approval. Nevertheless, no information had been provided on the adoption of that text or the process of prior consultation. Workers in EPZs did not have the right to organize or to strike, and it was possible to impose sentences of imprisonment in the case of unlawful strikes, go-slows and picketing. The third point raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts concerned freedom of association in the banking sector. Pursuant to the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, workers in banks and financial institutions, which were mainly private enterprises, did not have the right to exercise trade union activities during bank opening hours. In November 2009, a member of the staff union of the Muslim Commercial Bank was reported to have been detained for his trade union activities. Moreover, the possibility of becoming an officer in a banking union was strictly limited to employees of the bank in question. As a result, trade union rights ended with the termination of the employment relationship with the bank, which was in contradiction with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee on Freedom of Association had been examining a complaint regarding the above Ordinance since 1997, although without yet any positive outcome. The Worker members insisted that the Government should amend the legislation on an urgent basis so as to allow workers in the banking sector to exercise the right to freedom of association accorded to them by the Convention.

Other problems persisted in relation to freedom of association, and both national unions and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) had indicated their concern in that respect to the Committee of Experts. The Federal Government had broad powers to prohibit any strike over 30 days which was liable to cause “serious hardship to the community” or was “prejudicial to the national interests”. In the case of public utility services, a strike could be prohibited at any time, before or after its commencement. For a strike to be declared legal, strike notice had to be provided one month in advance. Moreover, a climate of violence, pressure and threats against the officers and members of workers’ organizations reigned in many workplaces. Numerous cases of the arrest, detention and discrimination against trade union activists had been reported during the year. Employers often opposed the unionization of their employees by having recourse to intimidation, dismissal and the use of blacklists. If an employer opposed the registration of a union, the procedures for its registration and appeals to the courts could take years. Moreover, certain employers falsely declared their employees as managerial staff, without granting them the corresponding salary, to prevent them from joining a union. The list of restrictions on freedom of association was long and there were numerous violations of the Convention. The observations made over the years by the Committee of Experts were very clear in that regard and the discussions in this Committee had been rich, but also frustrating. The Worker members expressed the strong hope that the discussion would incite the Government to take measures in the near future to bring an end to the failure to respect freedom of association in the country. In practical terms, the Government needed to: adapt its legislation urgently to the provisions of the Convention on the various points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts; lift the restrictions on the right to associate; provide full information concerning the adoption in the provinces of legal texts on unions and industrial relations; provide copies of such legal texts when they had been adopted; supply information on the adoption of the new EPZ rules and the process of prior consultation; and take all the necessary measures to create a climate guaranteeing freedom of association free from violence, pressure and threats against the officers and members of unions.

The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that the country had ratified both fundamental Conventions concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining. However, the Committee of Experts had repeatedly asked the Government to address the gaps between the principles of Convention No. 87 and the law and practice in the country. The Government had indicated that tripartite consultation had been held on 13 May 2011 with regard to a new industrial relation law at the federal level. However, the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 had expired following the 18th Constitutional Amendment and had not yet been replaced. This had created a legal vacuum, which could have been avoided had social dialogue been held prior to this Amendment. It resulted in the removal of legal status from national organizations, and the Supreme Court had ruled that such organizations could not be registered. Consequently, such entities had been refused participation in negotiations, and 1.5 million workers engaged in national level enterprises were therefore denied the right to organize. The Committee should request the Government to demonstrate political will, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling, due to its obligations under international law to implement fully the Convention. In addition, the Banking Companies Ordinance remained in violation of the principles of freedom of association. Bank workers had been dismissed due to their engagement in union activities, and such dismissed workers could still not hold office in these organizations. Finally, referring to several cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association, he emphasized that the Government must expedite the process of bringing its legislation into full conformity with the Convention and work with the social partners to this end.

The Worker member of Italy recalled that the Constitution foresaw the principle of freedom of association, and that the Government had ratified the Convention and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), 50 years ago. However, violations of workers’ rights remained systematic and pervasive, and the majority of the labour force did not have the right to join trade unions or engage in collective bargaining. Pakistani trade unions had been presenting complaints to the ILO concerning this matter since 1997. The entry into force of the 18th Constitutional Amendment, had put an end to the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, and had entitled the provinces to issue their own industrial relations acts. On 2 June 2011, a judgment of the Supreme Court had abolished the role of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Consequently, unions operating at the federal level would cease to exist, and only provincial unions, registered under the provincial industrial acts that existed in certain provinces, would continue to operate. Turning to the sectors in which unionization was not permitted, the speaker underlined that union organizing was banned in government services, civil enterprises working for the Ministry of Defence Lines Pakistan Railway, agriculture, and specific public sector enterprises, in addition to the workplaces to which the Essential Services Act, 1952, applied. Moreover, section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance prohibited trade union activities in banking and financial institutions during working hours, and permitted the dismissal of bank employees who violated this law. There were serious trade union restrictions in the EPZs, through the Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance, 1980 and the Export Processing Zone Act, 1982, which withdrew the coverage of various labour laws from these sectors, and prohibited workers in the EPZs from engaging in strikes, go-slow action or from refusing to work. Furthermore, conditions of workers at the existing industrial areas were poor, with the payment of minimal wages, frequent dismissals, and employer hostility to union organizing. The systematic and artificial promotion of workers into management grades was used by employers in both the private and public sectors to undermine trade unions. Additionally, a large number of workers in smaller enterprises were excluded from protections due to the restrictions of the Factories Act and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. The speaker recalled the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, at its March 2011 session, that a legal vacuum had been created by the absence of labour courts, and that the High Court of Sindh had revitalized the unacceptable Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also recommended that new legislation be adopted at the national level, in consultation with the social partners, that provincial legislation be brought into conformity with the Convention and that the National Industrial Relations Commission should continue to work. She emphasized her full support for these recommendations, and expressed the hope that the Government would repeal the constitutional amendments and would comply with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining in all sectors, including in the EPZ.

Another Government representative indicated that the diversity of views expressed, in addition to the comments made by the Committee of Experts, would help the Government to re-examine the problems raised and find solutions. Freedom of expression was fully respected, which comprised an independent and strong judiciary, dynamic civil society and media. The Government was fully committed to implementing the provisions of the Convention, in letter and spirit, and the steps taken by the Government in recent years were a reflection of this commitment. All national unions and federations were functioning normally despite the fact that the Industrial Relations Act, 2011, was not yet in force. It would be promulgated within days and would enter into force shortly. It would cover trade unions with nation-wide status. Several provinces had already introduced their own industrial relations acts. Separate labour courts would be established in EPZs. Section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, would be repealed and the Committee of Experts, as well as the social partners, would be informed as soon as the process was completed. The positive measures taken over the last three years showed that freedom of association and collective bargaining existed in Pakistan. Workers and employers without distinction whatsoever had the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. They had the right to elect their representatives and to formulate their programmes. No administrative authority was entitled to dissolve or suspend workers’ or employers’ organizations. The right to strike was guaranteed. Over the recent months, the Government’s commitment towards these principles had enabled workers employed in large corporations such as the Karachi Electric Supply Company, Pakistan International Airlines and the Pakistan Telecommunications Company Ltd, to achieve changes in their employment conditions and to increase their salaries through exercising their right to strike. The Government had reinstated hundreds of workers. In response to the statement made by the Worker member of Pakistan, he reaffirmed the Government’s full commitment to work together through social dialogue to address the issues that had been raised. Finally, he thanked the ILO for the positive contribution it had made towards enhancing the Government’s capacity to implement the provisions of the Convention, and thanked the social partners for their guidance and support in the resolution of these problems.

The Worker members expressed the hope that the Convention would be applied effectively in Pakistan. Trade union action was built on the conviction that a world with greater respect for trade union activities and the rights of workers was possible. The Committee should adopt strong conclusions and clearly call on the authorities to put an end to violations of workers’ rights. The Government should, therefore, do everything in its power to bring its legislation and practice into line with the Convention and to guarantee full freedom of association for all workers. In that regard, the Worker members reiterated the specific requests made to the Government in their introductory remarks. Furthermore, both the observation of the Committee of Experts and this Committee’s conclusions from 2009 were very clear. The Government should accept ILO technical assistance to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention, as the current situation deprived thousands of workers of their freedom of association. The Worker members concluded by observing that the Government seemed to recognize the difficulties and called on it to act promptly.

The Employer members recalled that this had been a long-standing case of the Committee, and that the Government had previously provided assurances that the necessary action would be taken to reach compliance. Therefore, while recognizing the sincerity of the Government representative, they expressed scepticism regarding the assurances provided to the Committee regarding the actions that would be taken in the future. There was no doubt that, to resolve the issues raised, urgent action was required. At minimum, in addition to several points raised by the Worker members, the conclusions should state that ILO technical assistance should be undertaken promptly. Additionally, the Government should submit the text of the various legislative changes discussed to the Committee of Experts, in time for examination at its forthcoming session. This would allow a fuller appreciation of the ongoing legislative action within the country and provide an assessment as to whether compliance had been achieved with respect to the international obligations under the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee took note of the Government representative’s statement which referred to the process of decentralization in the country. The representative stated that this had made the implementation set-up of the Industrial Relations Act more democratic and people friendly. The current implementation mechanism was a three-tier system which provided institutional machinery at federal, provincial and district levels to facilitate for the workers and employers the registration of their respective trade unions and federations and to resolve industrial disputes. Following the Constitutional Amendment introduced in 2010, the subject of labour had been transferred to the provinces which were responsible for legislation and implementation. The provinces were currently in the process of adopting laws and some had already introduced Industrial Relations Acts. Following consultation with the social partners, new legislation for regulation of industrial relations, registration of trade unions and federations and resolutions of industrial disputes at the federal level was at the final stage. He finally thanked the ILO for the assistance that it had provided to the Government with respect to labour law reform and other labour matters.

The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to long-standing discrepancies between the Convention and the law and practice in the country. The Committee further noted that new concerns were raised in relation to the apparent absence of national legislation regulating labour relations at the federal level and the implications for the right to organize of many categories of workers.

The Committee requested the Government immediately to provide all relevant draft legislation to the ILO for its assistance in ensuring that the new legislation would be in full conformity with the Convention. It further requested the Government to provide to the Committee of Experts for its examination this year all provincial laws relevant to the application of the Convention and detailed information on the progress made in adopting rules in export processing zones, with respect to the repeal of the Presidential Ordinance of 1999 and as regards the status of section 27B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962. Finally, concerned with the need to ensure a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of workers’ organizations, the Committee requested the Government to conduct an independent investigation into the serious allegations of violence against trade unionists and to report to the Committee of Experts on the outcome and the measures taken to punish those found to be responsible.

The Committee trusted that all necessary measures would be taken rapidly to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and expected to be in a position to note progress in this regard in the very near future.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2009, Publication: 98th ILC session (2009)

A Government representative stated that, since the new Government took office, it had taken important measures to fulfil its obligations under Convention No. 87. The Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002 was repealed by the Prime Minister during his first national address in Parliament, in March 2008, highlighting the Government's determination to implement the Convention. The Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2008 was promulgated in November 2008 as an interim legislative arrangement to provide relief to the stakeholders in consonance with international labour standards. This law established a comprehensive system for the faithful enforcement of the provisions of Convention No. 87, and aimed at rationalizing and consolidating the laws relating to the formation of trade unions. It also aimed at improving relations between workers and employers. The IRA 2008 repealed the IRO of 2002 and reflected many of the recommendations by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. Highlights of the IRA 2008 included the following: (1) workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, had the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorisation; (2) every trade union and employers' association could frame its own constitution and rules, elect its representatives, organize its administration and activities, and formulate its programmes free from interference by the authorities; (3) workers' and employers' organizations had the right to establish and join federations and confederations, which in turn could affiliate with international organizations; (4) managerial and supervisory staff, and employers, had been granted the right of association; (5) union activity was permitted in the railway lines of the Ministry of Defence, the Pakistan Mint, the Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, and the Workers Welfare Fund; (6) industry-wide unions were permitted; (7) the minimum union membership requirement had been lowered to 20 per cent of the workers in an establishment; and (8) trade unions were free to join or not join federations or confederations.

In line with the Prime Minister's directives, a tripartite labour conference was held with the assistance of the ILO Pakistan office on 16 February 2009. Stakeholders from all over the country were invited to the conference, which was presided by the Prime Minister - clearly demonstrating the Government's commitment to resolving all outstanding labour issues. The conference defined a course of future action, with a corresponding time line: all stakeholders would submit their comments on the final draft of the IRA 2008 by September 2009, which would then be analyzed by all stakeholders in a joint meeting. The draft was to then be vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and then submitted to Federal Cabinet for approval. This process was expected to be completed by April 2010. As for the measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, the Prime Minister, in his first policy speech to Parliament and during the inaugural session of the tripartite labour conference, had directed the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Finance to consider amending this provision. A bill to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance had subsequently been presented to the Senate.

He stated that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized by the relevant authority in consultation with the stakeholders. These rules covered the areas of employment conditions, working hours and holidays, wages, welfare, occupational safety and health, the right of association and collective bargaining. The Ministry of Industries planned to place them before Cabinet for approval very soon. He maintained that all issues falling under Convention No. 87 would be addressed in consultation with the tripartite constituents.

As regards the trade union activities in Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC), he stated that unions had been active in the KESC. A dispute concerning voting rights for contract workers was brought before the Sindh High Court, which decided in favour of extending those rights to contract workers. He added that Parliament had repealed the Chief Executive Order No. 6, and restored trade union activities at the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). Moreover, Administrative Orders Nos 14, 17, 18 and 25 had restored the previously suspended trade union activities and the existing collective agreements at the PIAC. A secret ballot for determination of the collective bargaining agent for workmen employed in establishments of the PIAC was held on 4 December 2008 throughout Pakistan; the People's Unity of PIAC Employees obtained the most votes and was declared the collective bargaining agent. In conclusion, he reiterated his Government's commitment to fulfilling its obligations under ratified Conventions, adding that the Government would continue to cooperate with all stakeholders in a positive manner to ensure implementation of the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that, in recent years, the Committee of Experts had repeatedly observed that the law of 2002 on industrial relations did not conform to ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The law had also attracted continued criticism from Pakistan's trade union movement as well as the ITUC. The latter had provided a detailed analysis of the issue in its previous annual report on violations of the right to organize, which highlighted the exclusion of the right to organize and collective bargaining across a range of sectors, both public and private; the Government's ability to restrict the right to organize of any group of workers by simply declaring them as "civil servants"; the heavy restrictions on registering trade unions; interference in trade union activity; and restrictions on the right to strike.

Throughout the years, the Government had promised to amend its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with international labour standards, but without any practical results. In 2008, the Government had unilaterally replaced the law of 2002 on industrial relations with a new interim law, which would lapse on 30 April 2010. In the meantime, a tripartite conference had been held in February 2009 to draft a new legislative text in consultation with all stakeholders. The Committee of Experts would await the adoption of that new law, expressing the hope that it would conform to Convention No. 87 and would guarantee the right to form trade union organizations. Further, the Committee of Experts "wished to believe" that any existing restrictions on the right to strike would not appear in the new legislation.

The Worker members expressed serious doubts on the matter with regard to the implementation process and the content of the new interim law of 19 November 2008. Four particular areas fuelled those doubts: first, the law of 2008 had been adopted without any prior debate or consideration on the amendments proposed by the trade unions. Second, the new law prohibited the forming of independent trade unions and deprived more than 70 per cent of the total labour force in Pakistan of the right to collective bargaining, in flagrant violation of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which Pakistan had ratified. It was regrettable that a clear and detailed analysis of the new interim law did not appear in the report of the Committee of Experts. Third, the Government had refused to participate in consultations with trade unions on the draft legislation before it was brought to the National Assembly, in violation of Convention No. 144 which Pakistan had also ratified. Finally, the law of 2002 and the interim law of 2008 were not the only sources of such issues. The Committee of Experts had rightly made reference to the law of 1952 on maintaining essential services, which also applied to non-essential services according to the ruling of the Committee. The Committee of Experts also noted section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, with reference to an amendment adopted in 1997. Amendments to the legislation on industrial relations would not therefore resolve all the issues.

The Worker members also expressed a hope - after all trade union action was built on hope, on the belief that a different world, with greater respect for union action and workers' rights, was a possibility. However, they hoped that the Committee would adopt firm conclusions and directly requested the authorities in Pakistan to end the violation of workers' rights. A more active approach was necessary. In its report, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to provide copies of new legislative texts when they were adopted. The Worker members proposed proactive intervention, involving the ILO in the drafting of that law. They invited the Government to make use of technical assistance from the ILO to guarantee greater conformity of the new legislation with the ILO Conventions that Pakistan had ratified.

The Employer members thanked the Government for its presence and the information provided. This was a difficult case, because no copy of the draft legislation had been provided for examination by the Committee of Experts. Without an appraisal of the interim law by the Committee of Experts, the Committee could not comment on the substance of this law. They encouraged the Government to pursue a more proactive approach as the case in question had persisted for a long time and had been discussed since the 1990s with different Governments. They were uncertain as to whether the interim law was as good as the Government claimed it was, but they expressed the hope that this was the case. Although the conclusions of this case would not be able to address the interim law substantively, they should express the ongoing concern of the Committee regarding the absence of a definitive legislation to meet the obligations of Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that the Committee of Experts had been requesting the Government to introduce amendments to its labour legislation for a number of years in order to bring its laws into conformity with the Convention. Of those laws, the IRO 2002, in particular, imposed restrictions upon the exercise of the right of freedom of association. He stated that his organization, the Pakistan Workers' Federation (PWF), held talks with the major political parties, including the present ruling party, the Pakistan People's Party, to persuade them to include issues touching upon the world of work in their election platforms - including amendments to the labour legislation.

He maintained that in spite of the Government's indications relating to freedom of association in such bodies as the PIAC and the Pakistan Mint, many workers in these institutions were still denied the rights afforded under Convention No. 87. Furthermore, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that several categories of workers continued to be denied their right to organize, including agricultural workers, workers in charitable organizations, workers in the Ministry of Defence railway lines, teachers, oil refinery workers, and bank workers by virtue of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance.

He recalled that the Committee of Experts had requested the amendment of several provisions of the IRO 2002, including: sections 31(2) and 37(1), which undermined the right to strike by allowing one party to a dispute to seek compulsory arbitration; section 32, under which the federal or provincial Government could prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility service; and section 39(7) which permitted the dismissal of striking workers. Although the Government had convened a tripartite labour conference in the early part of the year to address the question of legislative reform, the draft law promulgated at that meeting retained many of the restrictions previously commented upon by the Committee of Experts. Moreover, the draft legislation of 2008 contained other restrictions on freedom of association. For instance, the draft law allowed employers to enter into individual contracts with workers, bypassing trade unions and thus diminishing their ability to bargain collectively. It also provided for the dismissal of a trade union officer if he was found to even have been accused of an offence. Finally, the draft legislation contained several provisions relating to national public utilities that violated Convention No. 87.

Recalling that the nation had witnessed tremendous suffering in recent years, including the dislocation of one million people as a consequence of anti-terrorism initiatives in the Swat valley just last month, he urged the Government to pursue meaningful social dialogue in order to address the many and serious disparities between the legislation and the Convention's requirements. He concluded by requesting that ILO technical assistance be sought in respect of this matter.

The Government representative of Pakistan thanked the speakers for their comments. He maintained that reaching consensus on all labour issues was a difficult task that required progressive measures before attaining constructive dialogue. The Government was committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, and all constituents would be involved in obtaining a consensus with harmony. He acknowledged the difficulty of the challenges ahead, and emphasized in this respect the need for optimism and hope in order to continue to progress and overcome the impediments that lay ahead.

The Worker members had taken note of the additional information provided by the Government representative. Due to the promises which had not been kept in the course of the last years, they remained nevertheless sceptical of the developments that had been started in 2008 and the conclusions from the analysis of the provisional act on labour relations. They requested the Government to adjust without delay its laws in order to ensure full conformity with ILO standards, in particular with Convention No. 87. In this respect, they referred to the 2002 and 2008 Acts on labour relations, the 1952 Essential Service Maintenance Act and the Banking Companies Ordinance. They invited the Government to make best use of the technical assistance offered by the Office to improve the conformity of the new laws with the comments of the Committee of Experts. Finally, they requested the social partners' utmost commitment and openness towards the preparation of the new legislative texts.

The Employer members reiterated the need to bring law and practice into full compliance with Convention No. 87 and encouraged tripartite consultations as a means for doing so. In response to a query from the Worker member of Pakistan, they indicated that they had no objections to the proposal that the Committee of Experts already evaluated the interim law at its next session instead of 2010, given that this would help the Government to formulate a definitive law in conformity with Convention No. 87.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions.

The Committee recalled that this case concerned important restrictions to the right to organize of certain categories of workers and to the right of trade unions to formulate their programmes, elect their officers and carry out their activities without interference by the public authorities.

The Committee noted the Government's statement according to which the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) of 2008 had been promulgated as an interim legislative arrangement to provide relief to the stakeholders in conformity with international labour standards and was due to lapse on 30 April 2010. A tripartite conference had been held, with ILO assistance, to draft a new law in consultation with the social partners. The stakeholders had been asked to provide their comments on the IRA by September 2009 so that it could be reviewed again and sent to Cabinet for approval in time to complete the process by April 2010. The Government representative added that a Bill for the repeal of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance had been moved in the Senate. In addition, the Export Processing Zones (EPZ) authority had finalized the EPZ (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, in consultation with the stakeholders.

Recalling that the Committee of Experts had been commenting upon discrepancies between the law and practice and the Convention for many years now, the Committee requested the Government to accept ILO technical assistance in the drafting of the new legislation so as to ensure that all the outstanding matters were brought into conformity with the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that the necessary legislation would be adopted in the very near future with the full consultation of the social partners concerned and that it would guarantee the right to all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to form and join organizations to defend their social and occupational interests and to organize their activities and elect their officers freely and without interference. It urged the Government to supply detailed information on the concrete progress made in this regard to the Committee of Experts for its examination at its meeting this year.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2001, Publication: 89th ILC session (2001)

A Government representative stated that his delegation valued this opportunity for a constructive and result-oriented dialogue with the Committee on the application of Convention No. 87 and had always appreciated the guidance and advice provided by the Committee of Experts on issues pertaining to the application of ratified ILO Conventions. This dialogue had always improved the Government's efforts to implement these instruments. The Government member had listened with interest to the comments made by the social partners on some of the issues. He wished to address those concerns and inform the Committee of the positive actions being taken by his Government to do this.

At the outset, he referred to the social and economic challenges that Pakistan was facing on many levels. The Government's efforts were currently focused on reviving the national economy by reversing the slowdown in economic growth, accelerating efforts to generate employment and alleviate poverty, restoring the confidence of investors and addressing Pakistan's high external debt burden. He explained that Pakistan's economic revival strategy was not about economic growth alone, but also concerned justice and fairness, as well as the distribution of growth and its resulting benefits to the largest possible portion of the population, particularly its poorer members. However, Pakistan had been forced to make some difficult decisions as part of its economic revival plans, including privatization and downsizing of the banking sector, on which the Committee of Experts had commented. The Government was nonetheless taking steps to address the concerns of the social partners, particularly the workers, through sustained social dialogue and comprehensive labour law reforms.

The speaker informed the Committee that Pakistan, together with its social partners, was in the process of devising a modern labour law regime in order to address any discrepancies which might exist between the national legislation and Pakistan's international obligations. The social partners would confirm that, after intensive consultation with them, the Government had successfully completed the first phase of the labour reforms. This reform was being conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the high-level National Tripartite Labour Law Reform Commission, which had been established to consolidate, simplify and rationalize Pakistan's labour legislation. In the reform process, Pakistan was attempting to consolidate 100 categories of labour laws into six broad categories. A committee of legal experts, including experts appointed by the workers' and employers' groups, would be responsible for drafting these laws. The tripartite drafting committee would take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the application of all Conventions ratified by Pakistan. The proposed labour law reforms would then be submitted to the National Labour Conference in July 2001. In the second phase of the reform, the Government would attempt to address the concerns raised by the Committee of Experts with regard to the implementation of Convention No. 87 in some of the public sector organizations, such as the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation.

With respect to the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts at the delay in framing separate rules for export processing zones (EPZs), he was happy to inform the Conference Committee that these rules had already been framed and were presently under consideration by the Ministry of Industries and Production for submission to the Law and Justice Division. The Government was confident that these new rules would satisfy the requirements of the ILO Conventions ratified by Pakistan and would respond to the observations of the Committee of Experts.

Turning to section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, he stressed that most of the publicly owned banks in Pakistan were in difficult economic straits, and that if the situation continued, it could seriously undermine their economic viability. Apart from the banks' deteriorating economic conditions, he pointed out that bank management was also faced with certain unfair labour practices. The Government had therefore decided to restructure the banking sector and, as part of its structural adjustment programme with the International Monetary Fund, had agreed to privatize these banks. As a result, the banks would be made more economically viable through restructuring and downsizing. To that end, bank workers were being offered the "golden handshake" and voluntary separation schemes for their rehabilitation. In this concept, the Government representative noted that Pakistan had taken the labour unions into its confidence. The Ministry of Labour and the bank management had initiated a dialogue with the banking sector labour unions in order to address their concerns in restructuring the banking sector. Moreover, at the request of the Federal Organization for Banks and Financial Institutions Employees (FOBFIE), the Ministry of Finance, the State Bank of Pakistan and the Secretary-General of Finance had also held separate meetings with the labour union representatives in order to assure them that the Government was aware of the problems being faced by bank employees. He informed the Conference Committee that this dialogue would continue and that his Government was hopeful that this process of social dialogue would smooth the difficult but inevitable restructuring process. In addition, while his Government considered that section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance did not curtail trade union activities within the meaning of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (both ratified by Pakistan), and although the Industrial Relations Ordinance had been upheld by the Pakistani courts, the Government had nevertheless noted the observations of the Committee of Experts in this regard. He therefore informed the Conference Committee of his Government's intention to place this issue before the tripartite commission during the second phase of the labour law reform.

As the Committee was aware, the Government had restored trade union rights in the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). He reminded the Committee that his Government had previously provided a detailed account of the difficult financial problems being faced by WAPDA. However, he pointed out that, as soon as WAPDA's financial position improved due to the operational and financial restructuring supported by the World Bank, the Government had immediately lifted its ban on trade union activities. Unfortunately, the weak financial position of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) which, for many years, had had operational deficits, due to electricity theft, billing fraud and large-scale collection problems. These financial difficulties continued to be the main reason behind continued losses and liquidity. Due to these problems, compounded by unfair labour practices, the KESC was faced with a cash shortfall of approximately 22.4 billion rupees in the year 2000-01. In sum, the entire corporation was in dire financial straits. While the Government had expected to quickly improve the KESC's financial situation, particularly after WAPDA's situation had improved, the economic problems being faced by Pakistan had constituted additional constraining factors acting against the Government's desire to improve the situation in the KESC. He informed the Committee that his Government had entered into a technical and financial support agreement with the Asian Development Bank to improve the KESC's financial situation. While the Government was optimistic that the situation could soon be changed, thereby alleviating the Committee's concerns, this was expected to take some time. The Government undertook to keep the Committee informed of further developments in this regard.

Given the challenges currently being faced by Pakistan, the speaker considered that the Government was making efforts not to marginalize the concerns of the social partners, particularly the workers, and he again noted that Pakistan had initiated a comprehensive process of improving both the economic and social development of the country. While the Government had set positive objectives, achievement of those objectives required patience, time and consistent effort. The Government did not claim to have achieved perfection in any of these areas, but the speaker trusted that the Committee would take note of the frankness and sincerity with which his Government sought to address the problems noted, while remaining engaged in a dialogue with the Committee. He asked the Committee to keep in mind that, at this difficult time, every effort was being made to intensify the process of social dialogue and to accelerate efforts to bring national legislation in line with Pakistan's international obligations. While he understood that his Government needed to do much more, he urged the Committee to take due account of the progress made. He was optimistic that the process of labour law reform in which the social partners were actively involved would address the concerns raised by the Committee and he undertook to keep the Committee informed in this regard.

The Employer members indicated that this case had been before the Conference Committee for many years. The Committee of Experts had made observations on Pakistan's application of Convention No. 87 on 11 occasions since 1980 and the Conference Committee had also discussed the case on 11 occasions, the last time being in 1998. They recalled that, in 1987 and 1988, the Committee had found the situation important enough to warrant special paragraphs. Given the extensive history of this case, the Employer members noted that they found the comments of the Committee of Experts to be too compressed and urged the Committee of Experts to give a more complete description of the situation in future comments. The Employer members noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts listed several points regarding freedom of association and the right to organize in Pakistan. The Government's statements in response to the observations of the Committee of Experts differed remarkably from what the Conference Committee had heard on previous occasions, in that the Government representative had referred to social dialogue, labour law reforms and the need for economic revival and poverty alleviation as reasons why Pakistan had not yet complied with Convention No. 87. The Employer members nevertheless pointed out that the Committee was discussing the application of a fundamental Convention that Pakistan had ratified 50 years ago. Moreover, they considered that the Government representative had not responded to the points raised by the Committee of Experts' observation. This presented the Conference Committee with a dilemma, since the Government had offered no timetable within which changes would be made, but had merely reiterated promises that the Committee had heard before. They pointed out that the report of the Committee of Experts referred to the lifting of certain bans on trade union activities, and this was to be commended. However, the Government had failed to mention this in its statements to the Conference Committee.

Turning to the problem of export processing zones, the Employer members saw no reason why the Government could not begin correcting the situation now. They recalled that a direct contacts mission had gone to Pakistan in 1994 and that in 1998 the Government had told the Committee that the problems described would be corrected by 2000. It was now 2001 and the problems persisted. The Employer members therefore seriously questioned whether the Government had the political will to correct the situation. Moreover, while the Government member had focused on problems concerning the economic viability of the banking sector, the Employer members did not understand how this problem was relevant to the issue of who could be a member of the collective bargaining unit or to the issue of membership in bank trade unions. In this regard, the Employer members noted that the right of freedom of association was broad and that, therefore, if non-bank employees wished to join the bargaining unit of a bank trade union, nothing in the Convention would restrict that right. With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts pertaining to restrictions on the right to strike, as these comments apparently related to essential services, they requested that the conclusions of the Committee not include this point. In closing, the Employer members considered that the crux of the problem was that the Government was not coming to grips with this case, and they predicted that the Committee would still be forced to deal with the same issues in the future.

The Worker members expressed their thanks to the Government representative of Pakistan for the information provided. They referred to the well-known case of violations of freedom of association in Pakistan which the Committee had examined on six occasions during the last decade, the last time being in 1998. They equally pointed out the strange practice of the Government which consisted in sending reports containing the same information year in, year out. Apart from a few exceptions, they noted that the practice was repeated in the government reports which were examined by the Committee of Experts last November. The situation on trade union rights in Pakistan was also discussed by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The difficulties relating to the application of Convention No. 87 were of different types as they occurred in different sectors, impacting thousands of workers. The latter point was a case of gross violation of basic human rights. They underlined that the Committee of Experts needed to include a paragraph of 14 lines to simply list the points of "serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention". Indeed, the categories of workers who did not have the right to join a trade union were numerous. This concerned, among others, a large section of public servants, teachers, forestry, railway and hospital workers, agricultural workers, and executive officers. One of the most important problems related to the export processing zones (EPZs). Besides the provision of setting up or joining a trade union, the workers of such export processing zones (EPZs) in Pakistan had no right to bargain collectively nor to strike. They had no protection whatsoever against any interference acts committed by employers and against anti-trade union discrimination. The Worker members noted the intervention made by the Government in indicating that export processing zones (EPZs) would no longer be excluded from labour legislation. They fully endorsed the request of the Committee of Experts to the Government to keep it informed of progress made in practice on the issue. Another serious problem of violations of freedom of association in Pakistan related to the banking sector. With reference to the restrictions applicable to the trade unions in that sector, the Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts, together with the Conference Committee, had previously concluded that such provisions infringed the provisions of Convention No. 87. Article 27-B of the Ordinance governing banks was not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention as it infringed the right to freely elect workers' representatives. The Worker members had asked the Committee to take on board the request formulated respecting the amendment of the legislation in place. They equally requested the authorities to take immediate and effective measures to put an end to the attacks directed against trade unions in the banking sector to which the Committee referred. In conclusion, the Worker members reiterated that the case was an example of systematic, continued and often institutionalized violations of freedom of association, and that the Government did not exert sufficient efforts to remedy the situation. Indeed, legislation in general did not sufficiently protect workers who were active in trade unions and even less so those who were dismissed on account of their trade union activities or on account of their trade union membership. There were other important problems relating to the resolution of social conflicts. Trade unions cited as an example corruption and inefficiency prevailing in labour tribunals. They insisted that the Government take effective measures, in the short term, to bring its legislation and its practice into conformity with Convention No. 87. They recalled that the Government could always request the technical assistance of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

The Worker member of Pakistan noted that he had listened with interest to the statements of the Government representative as well as to the comments of the Employer and Worker members. He pointed out that Pakistani workers shared the ideals expressed by the Government representative concerning the challenges faced by Pakistan in the fields of work, poverty alleviation and employment promotion. However, he stated that the Government should involve the workers in achieving these ideals, and expressed his belief that those countries who actively involved workers' organizations were able to achieve their goals more efficiently. As the Government representative had acknowledged, it was essential for Pakistan to establish a dialogue with its workers. He considered that the points raised by the Committee of Experts regarding Pakistan's application of Convention No. 87 merited attention so that elements violating the Convention could be removed. He also cited the importance of trade union involvement in the Government's attempts to privatize and downsize the banking sector, pointing out that the bank trade unions' involvement could ensure that bank workers received a fair deal in the restructuring process. Turning to section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, he stated that this provision clearly conflicted with Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, he stressed that the problems noted by the Committee of Experts with regard to employees in export processing zones, teachers, hospital workers, forestry and railway workers, public servants of grade 16 and above, postal sector employees and employees in the television and broadcasting sectors, must be addressed. Recalling that the ILO had carried out a direct contacts mission to Pakistan in 1994, he noted that the ILO had pointed out to the Government how these issues could be addressed. He therefore asked the Government to review the current situation, particularly taking into account Article 2 of the Convention, which provided that all workers should be entitled to form and join organizations of their own choosing, with the possible exception of the police and armed forces. He welcomed the Government's indications that the bans on trade union activities had been lifted in WAPDA and at PTV and PBC. However, he noted that the Government had recently announced its intention to impose a similar ban on trade union activities in the Pakistan International Airlines. He therefore urged the Conference Committee to put this issue before the Government and he requested the Government to amend its legislation in light of the comments of the Committee of Experts. With respect to the right to strike in essential services, the Committee of Experts had stated that these workers should have the right of recourse to independent adjudication. He welcomed the positive developments made by the Government, but stressed that the other deficiencies which had been repeatedly criticized by the Committee of Experts should be corrected and that the Government should avail itself of ILO technical assistance. He hoped that the Government would take his statements into account and that it would include workers in its future plans concerning economic development.

The Worker member of Japan fully concurred with the comments of the Worker members and the Worker member of Pakistan on the issue of Pakistan's application of Convention No. 87. This case had been commented on for a number of years and the Conference Committee had consistently pointed out that Pakistan's law and practice were not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. She noted that there was a positive element this year in that trade union rights in the largest public utility company, WAPDA, had been restored. Nevertheless, trade union rights were still being denied in other areas of the public sector, including the railway sector, the hospital and teaching sectors, the postal sector, in export processing zones, for public servants above grade 16, in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. She also noted the restrictions placed upon the trade union activities of workers in the banking sector. Now it had been reported in the press that the Pakistani Government had decided to suspend fundamental trade union rights in the national airline, the Pakistan International Airlines. There was no doubt that this was in violation of Convention No. 87 and that the right to strike was seriously restricted in many areas. She noted that the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to review the relevant legislation and bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87. In this regard, she urged the Conference Committee to request the Government to take the necessary measures and to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in light of the Committee of Experts' observations.

The Worker member of Singapore wished to reiterate certain points concerning this case. Pakistan had ratified Convention No. 87 and Article 2 of that Convention was clear and unequivocal, stating that "workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization". Article 8 of the Convention provided that "the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention". Article 11 of the Convention placed the responsibility on the government "to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers may exercise freely the right to organise". Pakistan had clearly violated the obligations imposed upon it by each of these provisions.

First, Pakistan's legislation was not in line with the Convention. It periodically and systematically banned workers in certain sectors from union activities and prevented workers in the export processing zones from enjoying the basic rights which it grants to workers in other sectors of the economy. Moreover, the Committee had now learned that the Government intended to suspend trade union activities in another entity, the Pakistan International Airlines.

The Government had indicated that it was embarking on labour law reforms, but had not told the Committee of what the reforms consisted. More importantly, the speaker questioned whether those reforms would restore the rights of workers and within what time frame this would be accomplished. She recalled the Government's statement that the laws on export processing zones were being reviewed. However, this same promise had been made by the Government to the Committee on a prior occasion, when it promised to lift the exemption of EPZs from the application of the labour laws by the end of 2000. This had not yet been done.

Pakistan had clearly violated Convention No. 87. The speaker was particularly concerned that there appeared to be a consistent pattern of violating the Convention, to some extent, with impunity. The Government had lifted the ban on WAPDA and had promised to do so for the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. Yet, the Government continued to ban workers' rights in the EPZs and now apparently intended to suspend trade union activities in the Pakistan International Airlines. She noted that the Government appeared to be taking conflicting positions. In light of the statements of the Government representative regarding economic development, she questioned whether the Government's motive was to ensure greater progress or to attract more investment to the country. While economic growth was certainly important, it should not be achieved by muzzling unions and depriving workers of basic rights.

She urged the Government to enter into social dialogue with the unions and to put the welfare of the people above all else. Noting that the Government member had mentioned social dialogue with the social partners several times, she recalled that it must involve a serious and sincere effort on the part of the Government to consult the unions and take their needs and concerns into consideration. More importantly, for meaningful social dialogue to take place, there must be strong unions which would be free to articulate their views without fear of being disbanded at any time subject to the Government's discretion.

She agreed with the views expressed in the Committee that enough empty promises had been made and called upon the Government to live up to its obligations under the Convention by immediately restoring workers' rights and refraining from suspending the trade union activities of the Pakistan International Airlines.

The Worker member of Senegal noted that the case of Pakistan was raised for a number of years by the Committee of Experts. He highlighted that Pakistan refused to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention which it had ratified for the last half century. If one were to list the derogation exemptions from the Convention, one would realize that its violation constituted a deliberate act, and that it was the rule rather than the exception. He mentioned that the majority of public services were excluded from the application of the right to strike, by virtue of the Ordinance of 1969. Thus, it could be seen how the civil aviation employees, the employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporation were excluded from the scope of application of the Convention, and that the arguments put forward by the Government were thus unacceptable. He added that the restrictions on membership to bank unions and to joining leading trade union organizations in addition to imposing a penalty of up to a seven-year prison sentence as stipulated under the Act of 1997, in the case of illegal strikes, were a few examples of the harassment committed against trade union organizations and the workers. The Committee of Experts had indicated that the banking sector institutions were resorting to systematic dismissals based on article 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance which imposed exemptions in application. He therefore requested the Committee to stress that the Government amend the provisions of its legislation which violate Convention No. 87, which constitutes the very basis of the right of workers to defend themselves. The Committee on Freedom of Association which examined the complaints had suggested the adoption of relevant measures which were approved by the Governing Body in November 2000. He recalled that freedom of association and the right to organize constituted a permanent quest. He concluded by inviting the Government to spare no effort in putting an end to the unjustified trend to dismiss workers, and to amend the legislation in question.

The Government representative stressed that his Government was engaged in a serious exercise to amend, consolidate and rationalize its labour legislation, a process which it hoped to complete in a few weeks' time. Responding to the statements of the Worker member of Singapore, he pointed out that his Government understood the concept of social dialogue quite well and was applying it in both letter and spirit. He assured the Committee that his Government would take the concerns of the trade unions into account and would involve them in the reform process. In closing, he reminded the Committee that Pakistan was undergoing an economic restructuring under the World Bank and that the ensuing changes would take time.

The Worker members mentioned that they had listened attentively to the different interventions on the case. They took note of the interventions made by the Government in which they indicated that the amendments to the legislation in question would be made. They emphasized that the Government take effective measures, in the short term, to bring its legislation and its practice into conformity with Convention No. 87. Furthermore, they requested the Government to provide information to the Committee of Experts on the evolution of the situation.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion which took place thereafter. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions over the last decade. The Committee shared the serious concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and noted that these comments concerned numerous discrepancies in the legislation and practice in respect of the right to organize of several categories of workers, including workers in the public and private sector, hospital and police personnel, public servants of grade 16 and above, forestry workers, railway employees, workers in export processing zones, and administrative and managerial employees. It further noted the divergencies raised by the Committee of Experts in respect of the ban on trade union activities in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and the restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to select their officers in full freedom in the banking industry. While taking due note of the statement made by the Government representative concerning the labour law reform which was currently under way in consultation with the social partners, the Committee was nevertheless obliged to observe with deep concern that no progress had yet been made in respect of the outstanding matters. The Committee urged the Government to develop concrete proposals and to take all necessary measures in the very near future in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention which it had ratified one half century ago. It urged the Government to supply to the Committee of Experts detailed information on the concrete progress made in this regard in its next report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

A Government representative indicated that Pakistan was a developing country with myriad problems. It was faced with an extremely difficult economic situation due to multiple factors including a difficult geostrategic situation. Despite such deep-rooted impediments his Government had made every effort to implement the obligations voluntarily undertaken by ratifying ILO Conventions. His Government wished to continue to cooperate with the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee and used the comments of both bodies to improve the implementation of existing laws. With regard to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Convention, he provided the following observations. In order to bring all the labour laws into conformity with this Convention through a process of consultation and consensus building among the social partners, a commission was being set up to carry out this important task. Moreover, as had been noted by the Committee of Experts concerning the right to organize for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTCV) and of the Civil Aviation Authority, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a decision dated 2 July 1997, had allowed union activities in the PTCV. In compliance with the Supreme Court decision, the PTCV was developing a parallel legal framework to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO) to regulate relations between the employers and employees of the PTCV on an equitable basis. In addition, although the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) had been excluded from the purview of the IRO in 1979, the Government was convinced that this restriction should be done away with and the issue was likely to be resolved in a new labour policy. Furthermore the Civil Aviation Authority had also framed regulations in pursuance of the judgement of the Supreme Court and they were at an approval stage. A referendum in the Civil Aviation Authority had already been held pending approval of these regulations. Regarding the amendments to the Banking (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1986, the speaker pointed out that this issue had been the subject of intense debate. Some bank employees' unions had challenged section 27-B in the High Courts since it did not allow a worker to become a member or officer of any union in a bank if he or she was not an employee of the bank in question. Two of these writ petitions had been decided by the High Courts. The Lahore High Court had held that the use of bank vehicles and telephones could not be claimed as a basic right under article 17 of the Constitution and as such section 27-B did not violate the Constitution and could not be declared as invalid. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition against section 27-B and did not find the amendment contrary to the Constitution. Judgement on the remaining petitions was awaited and the matter was thus sub judice. Nevertheless the Government was seized of the matter. In a recent meeting between the Ministers of Labour and Finance and workers' representatives, it was decided that a three-month period would be required to assess the performance of the banking sector in Pakistan. The matter would therefore be reviewed in a tripartite process after three months. With regard to the denial of some rights guaranteed by the Convention to workers in export processing zones, the Government had undertaken to withdraw all restrictions imposed by the IRO by the year 2000. Regarding the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the IRO 1969 and restrictions on their right to strike, the speaker pointed out that public servants did not fall within the definition of "workman" under the IRO. Public servants were therefore governed by a separate set of laws. There was no discrimination against minority unions which enjoyed their rights in accordance with democratic principles. The right to bargain collectively and to raise grievances was the function of the collective bargaining agent. The Committee of Experts had commented on the exclusion from the definition of workers in the IRO -- and thus of the right to join a trade union -- of persons employed in an administrative capacity whose wages exceeded 800 rupees per month (when the national minimum wage had been fixed at 1,500 rupees in 1995). This amendment had been made in 1972 to include lower supervisory staff within the definition of "workman" under the IRO. A person who came within this definition enjoyed full trade union rights regardless of upper wage ceilings. With regard to artificial promotions as an anti-union tactic in the banking and financial sectors, the State Bank of Pakistan had confirmed that no artificial promotions had taken place in the five major banks, i.e. the National Bank of Pakistan, the Habib Bank Ltd., United Bank Ltd., Muslim Commercial Bank, and Allied Bank Ltd., as well as in the new scheduled banks in the private sector. All banks had confirmed that they were following the laid-down promotion policy. In addition, the rules provided that a worker who was given an artificial promotion had the right to refuse the promotion if it infringed on his right to organize. For reasons of public safety, security and health employees in public and private sector hospitals had been denied the right to form unions. The Government was considering lifting these restrictions. Amendments in the law would be required after ongoing tripartite consultations were completed. Regarding forestry workers, the Government had decided to review all existing laws through a tripartite commission in order to simplify and consolidate them. With regard to the railway employees, he pointed out that only 20 sections of railway lines had been classified as linked to the Ministry of Defence during peace and war. Staff employed on sections other than the Ministry of Defence lines had the complete right to organize within the ambit of the IRO.

Finally, regarding the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Government representative pointed out that the scope of this Act had been reduced to nine and then to only five of the initial 15 installations/organizations in the country. This was a significant step forward. The five organizations were: (i) the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Ltd., Karachi; (ii) the Karachi Electric Supply Company; (iii) employment concerned with the generation, distribution and supply of electricity; (iv) Kot Addu Power Company; and (v) the Kahuta Research Laboratories. As was obvious, three of the five dealt with electricity generation and all five effectively were essential services. These services if hindered, would affect the life, security, health and well-being of the society.

In conclusion, the speaker hoped he had been able to address some of the concerns of this Committee regarding the implementation of the Convention. He reiterated his Government's commitment towards the protection and promotion of labour rights in Pakistan.

The Workers' members noted that this was a well-known case that had been discussed six times over the last ten years. This Committee had engaged in a dialogue with various different governments during that period, but each time the dialogue had been the same because promises were made and not fulfilled. They regretted that the Government was sloppy in its reporting to the Committee of Experts. They also noted the Government's strange practice of giving repetitious reports on the application of the Convention, copying each other time after time almost word for word. The situation of trade union rights in the country had been discussed in the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and direct contacts had taken place in 1994. Following the last discussion of the case in the present Committee, in 1995, the Government had expressed interest in genuine change, but had not acted on this. The Government was clearly aware that the situation was not in conformity with the Convention, but the political will was lacking to remedy it. The Committee of Experts' observation noted that the Government's report merely repeated precisely the information provided in its previous report, but was able to note two new elements which arose from the comments made by workers' organizations: the Supreme Court judgement concerning the right to organize and to bargain collectively for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and of the Civil Aviation Authority; and the amendments to the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance. It should have been the Government which provided these details, and they considered that this would have been easy to do since it involved merely transmitting a copy of a judgement delivered by the country's Supreme Court. Referring to comments made during the debate of the Committee of Experts' General Report concerning problems with reporting due to lack of technical expertise in some administrations, they considered that this case was an example where no particular expertise was required in getting the new information to the Committee of Experts for examination. If the Government representative did not have a copy of the Supreme Court judgement with him to hand over to the Office, he could contact the authorities in order that the required copy could be faxed immediately. Regarding the first section of the observation, they recalled that the limitations on the right to organize and to bargain collectively in the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Civil Aviation Authority had been discussed in 1994 and 1995. This year they could note that the Supreme Court had restored these rights, but with two qualifications, namely that statutory backing was needed and that the Government could provide reasonable restrictions in respect of industrial action. This Committee should endorse the Committee of Experts' position in this respect and ask the Government to indicate the concrete measures taken to ensure that the workers involved enjoyed full rights under the Convention. Regarding the limitations introduced in trade unions in the banking sector, the Workers' members recalled the previous conclusions of this Committee and of the Committee of Experts to the effect that this contravened the Convention. The 1986 Act was not in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention and infringed the right to elect representatives in full freedom; this Committee should endorse the call of the Committee of Experts for its amendment.

In relation to the second part of the observation, they noted the seven points listed by the Committee of Experts where discrepancies existed between the national legislation and the Convention. No new information had been supplied by the Government representative. In 1995, this Committee had asked the Government to take concrete measures following the direct contacts mission. As the situation had not changed, this Committee could adopt the same conclusions today. They asked that the conclusions note that this was a serious case, that there was a lack of progress, and urge the Government to respond to the specific questions rather than transmitting repetitious reports; the conclusions could also note the lack of new information on the seven points listed while endorsing the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the Supreme Court judgement and the banking sector legislation. They hoped that the conclusions would request the Government to engage quickly in tripartite consultations, along the lines of Convention No. 144, so as to arrive at concrete proposals for change and that there would be a report for examination at the 87th Session of the Conference.

The Employers' members stated that the Committee of Experts' report had listed several points indicating restrictions in the legislation and practice as regards the right to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. Although in 1994 a direct contacts mission had taken place and a tripartite task force had been established with a mandate on labour and industrial relations issues, no information was provided as to whether it had been working on these matters and, if so, what the results of its work had been. The Employers' members noted the Government representative's statement, according to which all legal restrictions in export processing zones should be repealed by the year 2000. Although this seemed to be a positive approach which should be welcomed in this Committee's conclusions, the Employers' members pointed out that similar statements had been made on prior occasions when the case had been examined. Therefore, it was difficult to figure out whether a real political will on the Government's side existed in order to remedy the legal situation in the country. Following the statements of the Workers' members which already described the country's situation, the Employers' members noted that nothing had improved over the years. The Government's indication, according to which the number of services where strikes were prohibited by law had been reduced, represented only minimal progress. For these reasons, the conclusions should reflect the fact that the situation had remained the same over the years. Moreover, the Government should be urged to provide a detailed written report describing all the measures taken and envisaged in this respect.

The Worker member of Pakistan welcomed the part of the Government representative's report promising amendments to existing labour legislation. However, as the Workers' members had pointed out, such promises had been made since 1988. Moreover, a direct contacts mission had taken place in 1994 and a tripartite task force on labour issues had been set up soon thereafter. However, no follow-up action had been taken by the Government to amend its legislation in line with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission or those of the task force. In addition, although the Government representative had stated that discrepancies in legislation would be removed, this had never happened. On the contrary, the Government had now imposed new restrictions in the banking sector through the enactment of section 27-B of the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1986. This amendment allowed the Government to interfere in the free election of trade union representatives. Finally, section 2-A of the Civil Servants Act denied employees falling under its purview recourse to the labour courts. He stated that the workers' organizations had also had recourse to the Supreme Court and High Court and that was why trade union rights have been restored in the television and civil aviation industries. He also indicated that the trade union movement had been pressing the Government -- by holding a Protest Day on the First of May as well as by calling a "Tools Down Strike" on 5 May -- in support of their demands. The Government had held an Inter-Ministerial Meeting with the representatives of the trade unions on 20 January 1998 on labour law reforms, which was to be further followed up. The speaker hoped that the assurance given by the Government representative would be translated into concrete action through amending the laws which were contrary to the relevant ratified Conventions at the earliest date in order to eliminate unrest among the society. The said amendment was not only in contradiction with Article 3 of the Convention but also against the principle enunciated by the Experts in 1994 in its General Survey. He expressed concern over this retroactive amendment which enables any employer to terminate the service of banking workers on account of trade union activities, and thereafter debarring the person from becoming a member or office-bearer of the union. Therefore, its immediate repeal was demanded. He also drew attention to the regulations repugnant to the relevant ratified Conventions in the area of the Export Processing Zones, Railways, Hospitals, Radio and supervisory staff drawing pay of 500 rupees per month as being contrary to the Convention.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had handed down a judgement in July 1997 restoring the right to organize and bargain collectively for workers in the Pakistan Television Corporation and Civil Aviation Authority. He urged the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Supreme Court judgement. He further urged the Government to amend the Bank Ordinance of 1986 which currently required all candidates for trade union office to be an employee of the bank concerned. He pointed out that this was contrary to Article 3 of Convention No. 87 since it constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a trade union. Finally, referring to the other violations of Convention No. 87 which the Committee of Experts had noted in its observation, the speaker further urged the Government to ensure that these violations were removed by amending national legislation and practice accordingly; he requested the Government to keep the Committee of Experts informed of any developments in this regard.

The Worker member of Swaziland indicated that national labour legislation in Pakistan, instead of seeking to promote freedom of association, grossly violated the Convention and made its implementation impossible in various respects. For example, bank employees were denied the right to associate, workers in export processing zones were denied the right to organize, salary levels were used to discriminate against other workers and health workers were completely isolated from industrial relations protection. Moreover, according to an ICFTU survey, the right to strike was criminalized, the Government had arbitrary rights to classify any kind of worker under the essential services category, the authorities had wide-ranging powers to interfere in trade union affairs and the Government had an arbitrary right to impose an injunction on a strike that could last more than 30 days. In 1995 the Minister of Labour had informed an ICFTU delegation that the Awami Labour Union which had applied for registration in 1992, would be registered in two weeks. To date this had not happened. Since this case dealt with very serious violations of Convention No. 87, the speaker appealed for the highest possible condemnation within the means of this Committee to oblige the Government to comply with the requirements of this fundamental Convention.

The Government representative pointed out that his Government which had ratified five of the seven fundamental ILO Conventions was not a delinquent state. His country had been trying to abide by the requirements of all these Conventions and if there were violations here and there, this did not merit such strict condemnation of his Government. It was unfortunate that when assessing a case, only violations of the Convention were taken into account, but not the circumstances in which those violations occurred. While it was true that the recommendations of the tripartite task force on labour issues had not yet been fully complied with by amending legislation accordingly, there was a good reason for this. Since the establishment of this task force there had been many changes in Government. When a new Government came into power it undertook a review of all the policies, including labour policies, framed by the earlier Government. This was a reality which could not be ignored. In any event the recommendations of the task force were being reviewed by the new Government and a commission was also in the process of being set up to bring labour laws into conformity with ILO Conventions through consultation with the social partners. Responding to comments made by certain speakers, he insisted that his statement was not merely a repetition of what had been said by other Pakistani Government representatives to this Committee on previous occasions. With regard to the banking sector he explained that the amendment had been made to the 1986 Ordinance to prevent outsiders from being involved in union activities within a banking corporation. This was because prior to this amendment banks had not been operating normally due to the active involvement of outsiders in trade union activities. However, if the situation improved in a few months time, the Government would review this matter. Finally, with regard to alleged artificial promotions he stressed that no concrete examples had been given, but rather just general assertions made.

The Workers' members reacted to the statement of the Government representative who had inferred that the treatment of this case was unfair. The Committee of Experts itself noted in its observation that the Government's report merely repeated precisely the information provided in its previous report. The new information supplied by the Government representative to the present Committee had arrived too late; it would have been more useful for the work of both the Committee of Experts, in its technical examination of information available on the application of the Convention, and of this Committee, to have provided the new elements earlier. The Government's approach only frustrated the work of the present Committee. As to his statement that there had been many changes of government, the Workers' members recalled that they had heard such statements very often, and found it difficult, once again, to accept such excuses for the lack of progress. The Government representative had acknowledged that there were a few violations of the Convention, but the Workers' members stressed that this case involved many violations of a major Convention which had been the subject of attention for a long time. Many promises had been made on the part of the Government over the years, and they had not been kept.

The Worker member of Pakistan stated that he would have preferred the conclusions to have included a specific reference to the recent amendments to the legislation in the banking sector, which interfered in the internal affairs of trade union organizations contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion which took place thereafter. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions over the last decade. The Committee shared the serious concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and endorsed its observation as regards the numerous discrepancies in the legislation and practice in respect of the right to organize of several categories of workers, including public and private sector hospital employees, public servants Grade 16 and above, forestry workers, railway employees, workers in export processing zones, and administrative and managerial employees, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had further noted the restrictions on the right of trade unions to organize their activities, in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee observed with deep concern that no progress had been achieved in this case, and in this regard reiterated its conclusions from 1995. The Committee took due note of the statement made by the Government representative that the discrepancies regarding the rights of workers in export processing zones would be removed by the year 2000. The Committee urged the Government to develop concrete proposals and to take necessary measures in the very near future in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention which it had ratified over 45 years ago. It urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts this year on the concrete progress made in this regard.

The Worker member of Pakistan stated that he would have preferred the conclusions to have included a specific reference to the recent amendments to the legislation in the banking sector, which interfered in the internal affairs of trade union organizations contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Government supplied the following information:

1. With regard to the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), it is pointed out that the workers of the PTVC and the PBC have exercised trade union rights in the past. During the martial law regime, television stations were occupied by the former trade union leadership. This was found to be contrary to the discipline enforced by the former Army regime, and as a result the employees of both PTVC and PBC were excluded from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by a legislative amendment on the basis that they were involved in the sensitive field of information. This matter recently was placed for deliberation before the tripartite Task Force on Labour constituted by the Prime Minister of Pakistan to suggest ways and means of bringing national labour legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions. A subcommittee established by the Task Force recently heard the representatives of workers and employers of both PTVC and PBC who favoured the restoration of trade union rights for these employees subject to appropriate conditions to reinforce discipline in view of the sensitivity of information media. The Government may decide to restore such rights to employees of these corporations. The recommendations of the Task Force are actively under consideration by the Committee. The Ministry of Labour will inform the Committee of the outcome of the decision of the Cabinet on this matter.

2. With respect to the observation of the Committee concerning denial of the rights guaranteed by this Convention for workers in Export Processing Zones (EPZ), although these Zones have been exempted from the application of certain labour legislation, the conditions of employment of such workers are regulated by the Export Processing Zone Authority (Control of Employment) Rules 1982 which provide a separate system of rights for workers and for resolution of their grievances. Moreover, the benefits accruing to these workers are superior to those of other workers. At present only one EPZ has been established, the Karachi Export Processing Zone (KEPZ), which employs less than 6,000 workers, 80 per cent of whom are women. Since the cultural climate in Pakistan is not in practical terms in favour of unionization of women workers as a result of social taboos, these women workers do not themselves demand restoration of their trade union rights within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. However, they are not prevented from forming an association. EPZs were exempted from certain labour legislation because of arrangements made by the Government with foreign investors. This matter is under consideration by the Government to determine how labour legislation can be applied equally to all workers without discrimination. With regard to the KEPZ case, withdrawal of such an exemption must be considered while taking into account the arrangement made with foreign investors who invested in this Zone on the basis of certain exemptions provided to them. It was reiterated that employment conditions in the KEPZ were no less favourable than those under existing labour legislation. The labour force of this Zone has never complained in any manner about their rights, and instead seem to be content and satisfied with the above arrangements. In view of its electoral mandate, the Government is more committed to the labour cause than the previous Government, and is thus determined to redeem its promises to protect the rights of labour in the light of ILO Standards. The terms of reference under consideration by the Task Force on Labour provide for simplification, consolidation and codification of labour legislation. The deliberations of the Task Force in this regard may culminate in its recommending the establishment of a permanent commission for the codification of labour legislation, with the additional responsibility of ensuring that all labour legislation is adopted in accordance with ILO Conventions. The ratification by Pakistan of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 has established a climate that has been conducive to a democratic approach to resolving labour problems and disputes concerning employer/employee relationships on a collective basis. Fundamentally, this is a positive development in the field of industrial relations. Since Pakistan is a newly created State, it must rely to a greater extent on its economic activities while taking initiatives to build up its national infrastructure. In such circumstances no nation can easily afford the costs of social programmes when measured against economic viability. However, the initiatives of Pakistan in the social sector is proof of its intention and will to bring change to the living standards of the poor and the working community. Any restriction that is imposed or any practice that may be seen to be a deviation from the path that it is committed to is a result of the inherent interest of the Government in raising the living standard of the average person. Change will be inevitable as soon as circumstances are improved so that the affairs of the country can be administered at the same level as those of nations that have already passed this transitory phase. While bearing in mind the concessions made by the Government for the establishment of Special Industrial Zones (SIZ) to attract foreign investment, the matter of exemption of such Zones from the application of certain labour legislation was considered by the tripartite Task Force on Labour, and its recommendations are being actively considered by the Cabinet Committee.

3. As a result of the Administrative Reforms of 1973, all civil service associations representing services that existed prior to 20 August 1973 have ceased to exist. However, civil service associations other than those referred to above have been permitted to continue to function as previously. There is no prohibition against the formation of associations of different categories of employees, which is fairly in consonance with the provisions of this Convention. However, the employees of the federal Government and of all four provincial governments are subjected to certain restrictions to prevent activities that are harmful to the basic aims and objectives of their establishments, such as their involvement and that of their organizations in political activities, the issuance of periodical publications, or publishing representations of their members without prior approval of the Government. This is purely an administrative matter to maintain discipline and the smooth functioning of public establishments, which cannot in any way be considered a contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of this Convention. Rights provided to the employees under the above Articles are exercised in full freedom. However, the restrictions referred to above are in the vital interest of public establishments as well as of the employees in order to achieve the goal of efficiency leading to greater productivity and production. For the purposes of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 "Essential Service" means an employment or class of employment which is essential in the opinion of the federal Government for securing the defence or security of Pakistan or any part thereof or for the maintenance of such supplies or services as are essential to the life of the community. It is in all respects consistent with national considerations and objectives that the above criterion be followed in applying the law in question to employment that is by nature essential. The Government noted that the report of the ILO mission to Pakistan had considered the issue of essential services to be a complicated matter to which generalizations were difficult to make and apply, and that in general terms the basis for exclusion must be a serious matter for health, safety and law and order. If this is taken as an ILO criterion, Pakistan has acted very carefully in extending the application of the above law to certain organizations. It is not correct that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been applied broadly to employers such as the Post and Telegraph Services, the Railways, Airways and Ports. While extending the application of this law to any organization for any limited period of time, due care is taken and for that purpose requests of the employers are thoroughly examined by the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour. Only those requests that meet defence needs or concern the life of the community can be considered for coverage by the above law, which does not prohibit trade union activity. The Interior Division recently issued an explanation in respect of the application of this law:

... the application of this Act to an organization does not take away workers' rights of collective bargaining. The provisions of the Essential Services Act and the rules made thereunder empower the Chairman, NIRC to regulate the wages and other conditions of service of persons or classes of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment to which the Act/Rules apply. Accordingly the settlement reached between the management and the CBA are authenticated by the Chairman, NIRC and forwarded to the Ministry of Interior for notification in the Gazette of Pakistan. Furthermore, the Act also does not impose any ban on trade union activity.

The main goal of the Government is to ensure economic viability of its national priorities programmes. For this reason the country cannot afford industrial action including strikes or lockouts to continue for an indefinite period, and it is in the national interest to restrict the rights to engage in such activity. This restriction presently acts as a deterrent, but workers have seldom resorted to a strike or lockout for a period of even as long as 30 days. Restrictions on industrial action that may be more undemocratic do not exist within the legal system.

4. The management of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) is implementing the terms and conditions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 as applied by various labour laws. As a result of the amendment of section 10 of the PIAC Act, 1956, the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been restored and formation of trade unions of PIAC employees has already been permitted. As a result of the existence of trade unions of employees in the PIAC, the collective bargaining agent (CBA) has been determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission for a term of two years ending in 1994 through a referendum conducted during 1992. The CBA and management have signed an agreement on the revision of wages and allowances on the review of terms and conditions of employment taking into consideration the welfare of the employees. The withdrawal of application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to certain other establishments referred to above is under consideration by the tripartite Task Force on Labour, and its recommendations on this matter were submitted to Cabinet for approval. The list of establishments covered by this Act is expected to be modified in accordance with the decision of the Cabinet and will be reported on in the next annual report.

5. With regard to the right of representation of minority trade unions, the federal and provincial governments have not yet faced any problems in this regard as their rights are adequately protected under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and their grievances if any, redressed by courts of law. Their interests are properly looked after by their respective CBA trade unions, as collective agreements entered into by CBAs are binding on all kinds of workers and as such, benefits under such agreements are granted to non-CBA members as well. However, the Government has taken note of the observation of the Committee and is taking all possible measures under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are in consonance with this Convention to protect the rights of the minority trade unions.

6. The Government reiterates its previous explanation with regard to the allegations made in the complaint (Case No. 1534) by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) against the alleged anti-union policy of multinational companies in Pakistan. It affirms that Section 15(i) provides protection against anti-union acts and that if in effect false promotions occurred whereby the employees received higher wages but there were not the corresponding change of task to a supervisory role, employees could resort to the unfair labour practice provisions of Section 22(A)(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and eventually proceed to the labour court for redress. The PNFTU has lodged no complaint against the Government as such, and is instead aggrieved by certain decisions of the management of some of the multinational companies operating in Pakistan. As the complaint is against one civil person by another, the aggrieved party can obtain redress by approaching judicial bodies established for this purpose. This matter was also discussed at length during the visit of the above-mentioned ILO mission. The law on this matter is quite clear, and the complainant can resort to its provisions to attain justice if they are of the view that there has been an infringement of any of their trade union rights. This is a matter between the management and workers, and the Government should not intervene in their relations. Promotion of workers to a higher level job is also considered to be their right, and if a law is adopted to restrict this, even if it were to exclude workers from the worker category, this would be taken to be a measure affecting their legitimate interests. However, if a court considers such a matter to be bad faith, it would be dealt with differently. There would be very few cases determined by the courts on such ground, and no relevant statistics are available. However, this matter was considered by the tripartite Task Force on Labour in the light of all existing legislation, and it made certain recommendations which are being actively considered by the Cabinet Committee. The Task Force has also considered broadening the definition of workman, which may provide a solution to the problem as indicated.

7. It is incorrect that employees working in the public and private sector hospitals and clinics are deprived of the right to organize and form trade unions. However, these services have been declared essential to secure the defence of the security of Pakistan or any part thereof and to maintain such supplies or services which are essential to the life of the community pursuant to the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The application of the above Act does not deprive workers of the right to organize as provided under this Convention, and they therefore have the legal right to form associations.

In addition, a Government representative referred to the written information provided, and stated that he would limit his intervention to the progress made with regard to trade union rights since the last sitting of the Committee. He first recalled the promises that the Government had made with regard to workers: (1) all labour legislation would be revised to guarantee trade union and employers' rights; (2) democratic trade unionism would be promoted by implementing international labour standards that governed relations between the Government, employers and workers; (3) bonded labour and child labour would be abolished; (4) rights recognized under ILO Conventions would be guaranteed. He indicated that the Government had prepared a new policy in the area of labour that was based on the recommendations of the tripartite Task Force on Labour and on the result of the direct contacts mission that had recently taken place. This new policy, which provided for important reforms at the level of labour administration and the guarantee of trade union rights, was presently being examined by the Cabinet for approval. With regard to the application of labour laws to workers in export processing zones, the Government would examine the possibility of eliminating, over a period of five to six years, the exemption of the application of labour legislation to those zones. With respect to the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952, he indicated that the number of enterprises covered by this Act had been reduced from 16 to eight, and that the list would be regularly examined. In relation to the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he explained that the only employees excluded were those employed by railways that had been classed as defence-sensitive, in that they were essential for the purposes of the Ministry of Defence. At that time, there were 20 railway lines of this kind. Two of the lines had been deleted from the list. In other cases, railway workers were free to form trade union organizations. These examples were evidence of the willingness of the Government to apply the provisions of the Convention. He asked the Committee to be flexible, considering that the new labour policy would permit a response within a reasonable period of time to the concerns indicated by the Committee of Experts.

The Employers' members expressed appreciation for the oral and written information, but emphasized that it was difficult for the Committee to examine the merits of the alleged changes because of the extensive written and oral information provided by the Government. This case had been examined on ten occasions since 1981 and was the subject of special paragraphs in 1987 and 1988. They noted a gradual improvement during this period and indicated that they were pleased to learn that the Government would continue in this direction. In the meantime there were problems that persisted, particularly with regard to the prohibition against employees in the telecommunications sector from joining a union or carrying out trade union activities; the denial of rights guaranteed by the Convention to workers in export processing zones; the exclusion of a considerable number of public servants from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and restrictions on their recourse to strikes; prohibition on minority trade unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances; artificial promotions used as an anti-union tactic in the banking and finance sector; and the denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals. The Employers' members noted in particular the reduction in the applicability of the Essential Services Act, and said that it was for the Committee of Experts to determine whether the problem of the right to organize and the right to strike had been resolved.

The Workers' members said that they had been unable to adequately examine the extensive amount of written information provided by the Government. For this reason, the extent of their intervention on this matter was limited to several points. Firstly, they wished to receive information on the views of the Task Force on Labour and its influence on changes to labour legislation, in particular with regard to the restoration of the rights of freedom of association for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. Secondly, they wished to have more detailed information on the implementation by the Government of the recommendations of the 1994 direct contacts mission. Thirdly, they were concerned about restrictions on the right to organize in a number of sectors. They asked whether hospital workers had the right to organize, and about the percentage of railways that were considered to be defence-sensitive which meant that employees of those railways were prohibited from striking. A distinction was drawn between the right to organize and the right to strike, and they asked that the Government not confuse these two rights when extending trade union rights to workers. They hoped that in view of the existence of the Task Force on Labour, a tripartite organization, the Government would be able to introduce its recommendations as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of the United States expressed disappointment that the Committee would only be discussing point 2 of the Committee of Experts' comments, in view of the many important issues that were contained in the other points of the report. If the other points had been dealt with, he would have mentioned the recent arrest of three workers of the Bonded Labour Liberation Front as well as the detention of 13 relatives of Iqbal Masil, the child rights labour activist who was murdered in April 1995. He stated that the requirement under the Convention that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, had the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing had been made needlessly complicated by the Government. He questioned the motives of the Government which continued to exempt or partially exempt many different groups of workers from exercising this basic right to organize. He hoped that the Government representative would assure the Committee that the prohibition against railway employees and forestry workers, as well as any other groups of workers, from exercising their fundamental right to establish and to join unions of their own choosing would be unequivocally removed.

The Government representative reiterated that some time would be needed before his Government could withdraw the exemptions from provisions of the Industrial Ordinance concerning collective bargaining for the export processing zone (EPZ) because when the investment was attracted for the EPZ, investors were given certain assurances regarding labour activity, so that there was now a contractual obligation between the Government and the investors from which it could not withdraw arbitrarily. However, the policy of the Government was no longer to allow such exemptions for any particular area of the country. With regard to the restriction of freedom of association in hospitals and clinics, persons working in private hospitals and clinics other than government hospitals were not subject to any such restrictions. The employees of government hospitals were not covered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. However, they could form associations to safeguard their interests. Employees of private hospitals and clinics could form their own unions.

The Committee noted the observations of the Committee of Experts, the statement of the Government representative and the discussion that followed. While the Committee appreciated the information in regard to the proposal for a new labour policy and the gradual improvement that had come about, it felt that there were multifarious groups of workers who stood denied freedom of association by law and practice, that is the workers of Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations, workers in export processing zones, civil servants, railway employees, hospital workers and those engaged in forestry operations. This was rather wide-ranging and pervasive and needed to be corrected for compliance with the Convention. The Committee also felt concerned about certain practices such as the granting of artificial promotions and manipulation of definitions so as to effectively exclude workers from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Recalling that in 1994 the Government had welcomed a direct contacts mission which went to Pakistan in January 1994, and the creation of the tripartite Task Force on Labour to solve difficulties in the application of the Convention, the Committee trusted that the Government would take the necessary and concrete measures which would give effect to the recommendations made by the direct contacts mission and the Committee of Experts. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would indicate in its next report any decisive progress made in relation to the application of the Convention, in particular, with regard to the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, in the private as well as the public sector, including export processing zones. The Committee also hoped that the new labour policy would serve to address the recommendations of the national tripartite Task Force on Labour made from time to time, and all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts, and asked the Government to furnish the texts of the relevant policy documents for examination of issues of conformity to the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

The Government supplied the following information:

1. With regard to the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), it is pointed out that the workers of the PTVC and the PBC in the past used to exercise trade union rights. During the martial law regime, television stations were occupied by the then trade union leadership. This action was taken contrary to the discipline enforced by the then Army regime. As a result, the employees of both PTV and PBC were excluded from the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by an amendment to the law since they belonged to the sensitive field of information. This matter recently has been placed for deliberation before the tripartite Task Force on Labour constituted by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, inter alia, to suggest ways and means to bring national labour laws into conformity with ILO Conventions. A subcommittee constituted by the Task Force has recently heard the representatives of workers and employers of both these organizations who have favoured the restoration of trade union rights to these employees, subject to certain appropriate conditions where discipline may be reinforced in view of the sensitivity of information media. The Government may decide to restore trade union activities to these organizations after the Task Force finally submits its recommendations to the competent authority, i.e. the Cabinet for approval. The Ministry of Labour will let the Committee know of the outcome of the decision in the matter.

2. So far as the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (EPZs) is concerned, it is stated that although the EPZs have been exempted from the application of certain labour laws, the conditions of employment of their employees are regulated by the Export Processing Zone Authority (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982. These rules provide for a separate system of rights of their workers and for the resolution of their grievances. Moreover, the benefits that accrue to these workers are better when compared to those of other workers. It may also be mentioned that at present there is only one EPZ that has been established in Karachi. Fewer than 6,000 workers are employed by the Karachi Export Processing Zone (KEPZ), with around 80 per cent female labour. Since the cultural climate in Pakistan is not in favour of unionization of female workers due to social taboos, those workers themselves do not demand that trade union rights within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, be restored to them. However, there is no bar on their forming any association. Exemption of labour laws was granted to EPZs for reasons of Pakistan's deal with foreign investors. The matter is under the Government's consideration in order to see how to apply labour laws equally to all enterprises without discrimination. In the case of the KEPZ, the withdrawal of the exemption is a matter that will have to be seen in line with the deal made with foreign investors who have invested in this zone on the basis of certain exemptions provided to them. In any case, as already stated, the employment conditions in this zone are no less favourable than under the existing labour laws. The workers of this zone have never complained in any manner about their rights. Rather, they seem to be more content and satisfied with the arrangement as explained above in detail. The present Government, in view of its election manifesto, is more committed to the cause of labour than the previous Government and is determined to redeem its pledges to protect the rights of labour in the light of ILO standards. The terms of reference being considered by the Task Force on Labour provide for simplification, consolidation and codification of labour laws. The deliberations of the Task Force in this regard may culminate in its recommendation for the establishment of a permanent commission on codification of labour laws. It will also be the responsibility of the commission to see that all labour laws are brought into conformity with ILO Conventions. Pakistan's ratification of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 has created a climate whereby a democratic approach is being used in resolving labour problems and disputes pertaining to the employer-employee relationship on a collective basis. Fundamentally, this is a positive development in the field of industrial relations. Since Pakistan is a newborn State, it has taken initiatives to build up national infrastructures and has to rely more on its own economic activities. In such circumstances, no nation can easily afford the cost of a social programme when measured against economic viability. But Pakistan's initiative in the social sector itself is proof of its intentions and it will bring change in the living standards of the poor masses and the working community. Change is inevitable as soon as matters have improved to a point where it will be possible to run the affairs of the country at par with those nations that have passed this transitory phase.

3. As a result of the administrative reforms of 1973, all civil service associations representing civil servants, prior to 20 August 1973, have ceased to exist. However, civil service associations other than regularly constituted associations which were functioning prior to the introduction of the administrative reforms have been allowed to continue to function as before. At present there is no bar on the formation of associations of different categories of employees; this is fairly in consonance with the provisions of this Convention. However, federal government employees, as well as all the four provincial governments' employees, are subject to certain restrictions to avoid the carrying out of activities that are harmful to the basic aims and objectives of their establishments, such as the engagement of employees and their organizations in political activities, the issuance of periodical publications or publishing representations of their members without prior government approval. This is a purely administrative measure to maintain discipline and the smooth running of the public establishments which in no way can be termed to be in contravention with Articles 2 and 3 of this Convention. The rights granted to employees under these provisions are being exercised by them in full freedom. However, the restriction mentioned above is in the vital interest of the public establishments as well as the employees, to achieve the goals of efficiency leading to greater productivity and production. In the context of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, "essential service" means an employment or a class of employment which is essential in the opinion of the federal Government for securing the defence or security of Pakistan or any part thereof or for the maintenance of such supplies or services as are essential to the life of the community. The above criterion is applied in keeping with national considerations and objectives while applying the law in question to employment of an essential nature. It may be mentioned that an ILO mission headed by Sir John Wood that visited Pakistan has treated the issue of essential services in its report as a complicated matter on which generalizations are difficult to make and apply. The mission has formed the opinion that in general terms, the basis for exclusion must be a serious matter for health, safety and law and order. If this is taken as an ILO criterion, Pakistan has acted very carefully in extending the application of this law to certain organizations. It is not correct that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, has been broadly applied to employment organizations such as the post and telegraph services, railways, airways and ports. Due care is taken when extending the application of this law to any organization for a limited period of time, and for that purpose the request of the employing organization is thoroughly examined by the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour. Only those which meet defence needs or concern the life of the community can be considered to be covered by the said law which virtually does not prohibit trade union activity. An explanation recently issued by the Interior Division in respect of the application of this law is reproduced below:

... the application of this Act to an organization does not take away workers' rights of collective bargaining. The provisions of the Essential Services Act and the rules made thereunder empower the Chairman, NIRC, to regulate the wages and other conditions of services of persons or class of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment to which the Act/Rules apply. Accordingly the settlement reached between the management and the CBA are authenticated by the Chairman, NIRC, and forwarded to the Ministry of Interior for notification in the gazette of Pakistan. Furthermore the Act also does not impose any ban on trade union activity.

As pointed out, the main thrust of the Government of Pakistan is to ensure the economic viability of national priority programmes. Pakistan cannot afford industrial action, including strikes or lockouts, to continue for an indefinite period. Therefore, it is in the national interest to put a check on this right. This check presently serves as a deterrent, but the parties themselves have hardly ever resorted to a strike or lockout for a period of even up to 30 days. Such a restriction on the initiation of industrial action - which may be more undemocratic - does not exist in Pakistan's legal system.

4. The management of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) is implementing the terms and conditions of ILO Conventions (Nos. 87 and 98) within the scope of the provisions contained in various labour laws. Consequent upon amendment of section 10 of the PIAC Act, 1956, the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has been restored and the formation of unions in the PIAC has already been allowed. Due to the existence of unions in the establishment, the collective bargaining agent (CBA) has also been determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission through a referendum conducted in 1992 for a term of two years ending August 1994. The CBA and management have already signed an agreement on the revision of wages, allowances and on the review of terms and conditions of employment, keeping in mind the welfare of the employees. The matter pertaining to the withdrawal of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to this and other establishments mentioned above is under the consideration of the tripartite Task Force. The recommendations of the Task Force on this issue will be submitted to the competent authority, i.e. the Cabinet, for approval. The list of establishments covered by this Act will be modified in accordance with the decision of the Cabinet and will be reported in the next annual report.

5. So far as the right of representation of minority unions is concerned, the federal Government and provincial governments have so far not faced any problems on this account as these rights are adequately protected by the IRO of 1969 and grievances, if any, are redressed by the courts of law. Moreover, these interests are properly looked after by the respective CBA unions. Collective agreements entered into by the CBAs are binding on all types of workers, and as such, benefits under such agreements are granted to non-CBA members as well. However, the Government has taken note of the observation and is taking all possible measures which are in consonance with this Convention, to protect the rights of minority unions accordingly.

6. The Government reiterates its previous explanation with regard to the allegations made in the complaint (Case No. 1534) by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions against the alleged anti-union policy of multinational companies in Pakistan. It affirms that section 15(i) provides protection against anti-union acts and that, if in effect false promotions occurred, whereby the employees received higher wages but not the corresponding change of task to a supervisory role, the employees could use the unfair labour practice provisions of section 22(A)(8)(g) of the IRO and eventually go to the labour courts for redress. It is further stated that although the Federation has lodged no complaint against the Government of Pakistan as such, it is however aggrieved by certain decisions of the management of some of the multinational companies operating in Pakistan. Since the complaint is against one civil person by another civil person, the aggrieved party can get redress by approaching the judicial bodies established for the purpose in the country. This matter was also discussed at length during the visit of the above-mentioned ILO mission. This is a matter between the management and the workers and the Government has no role to play in their relationship.

7. It is not correct to say that the employees working in the public and private sector hospitals and clinics are deprived of their right to form trade unions. However, in order to secure the defence or the security of Pakistan or any part thereof and to maintain such supplies or services which are essential to the life of the community, some services have been declared as essential services under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The application of this Act does not mean that the workers have no right to organize as guaranteed to them under this Convention. Hence, they have the legal right to form associations.

In addition, the Government representative stated that his Government welcomed the ILO's attention towards the labour rights situation in Pakistan, as well as the recent ILO direct contacts mission which advised the Government on matters relating to workers' rights and compliance with ratified Conventions. Recognizing that many of the observations made by the Committee of Experts regarding his country were not without reason, he admitted that there was child labour in Pakistan and that there were curbs on workers' rights in some establishments, especially those falling under the Essential Services Act. Commenting on the recent developments in his country, he stated that the new Government had the firm commitment to protect workers' rights and had set up a special tripartite Task Force on Labour. The recommendations of this Task Force would shortly be submitted to the Government and would form the basis of a new labour policy to ensure harmonious labour-management relations. Already the present Government had decided not to apply the Essential Services Act to any new establishment and to redefine it with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention. The existing list of the establishments under the Act would gradually be reduced to a minimum: three of the establishments had already been removed from the list. In addition, the Government had decided to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the ILO to launch a programme for the gradual elimination of child labour. The supervisory machinery has been geared up to check violations of labour laws, especially the laws relating to child labour and bonded labour. In order to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the ILO, the Government had decided to ratify two Conventions, namely the Tripartite Consultations (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159). As to the observation of the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 87, he stated that these matters had been referred to the Task Force on Labour and that the ILO would be informed of the outcome in due course. He requested the Committee to give reasonable time to the new Government to take decisions on the recommendations of the Task Force and of the ILO direct contacts mission.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been discussed since 1981 and had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1987. Today, they welcomed a whole series of positive indications from the Government, not only with respect to Convention No. 87 but on other important issues as well. They noted with satisfaction that the direct contacts mission to Pakistan had taken place in January 1994 and that the Government wanted to receive continuing assistance. The written information furnished by the Government had provided this Committee with details on the work of the tripartite Task Force on Labour. The Employers' members urged the Government to take account of paragraph 160 of the General Survey of the Committee of Experts concerning strikes in essential services. They asked the Government representative to indicate how ILO technical assistance and the information from the direct contacts mission was being used by the Task Force, particularly in the formulation of new legislation. Finally, the Employers' members urged rapid enactment of the appropriate legislation to bring Pakistan's labour law into line with the Convention.

The Workers' members, noting that the Task Force would be reporting fairly shortly to the Government, wanted more precise indications as to when the Task Force would finally complete its work, whether it had taken into account all the observations made by the direct contacts mission of the ILO, and how quickly its recommendations could be passed into law. They pointed out that the information given by the Government representative on the action taken to limit the number of areas where strikes were forbidden should be provided to the Committee of Experts so that it could determine whether these were areas where strikes should be prohibited.

The Government representative reiterated that the new Government elected eight months ago was deeply concerned with the welfare of workers and was trying to expedite the recommendations of the Task Force in order to formulate a new labour policy. He expected the Task Force to be presenting its report in July 1994 but pointed out that, while executive decisions on its recommendations could be taken fairly quickly, matters requiring legislation would take a much longer time. The recommendations of the ILO direct contacts mission had been made available to the Task Force which would be making its own recommendations in the light of this mission's report.

The Workers' member of Greece thanked the Government representative for the information supplied, but indicated that, in his view, no replies were provided on the two questions raised in a very clear manner in the report of the Committee of Experts. These concerned the prohibition on employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation as well as on employees in the public and private hospitals, to establish or to join trade unions. He considered that removing the ban for the workers to establish trade unions did not require an enormous legislative work and it sufficed to repeal the relevant provisions.

The Government representative stated that the question of the ban on trade union activities in the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation was among the items on the agenda of the Task Force which would be making appropriate recommendations. As for hospital workers, this issue had not yet come up before the Task Force but he assured the Committee that it would be put before the Task Force as a matter to be included in its final recommendations on his return. The question of civil servants could also be placed before the Task Force. However, according to a new ruling of the Supreme Court, those working in the service of the State could not form trade unions, but they did have the right to form associations.

The Workers' member of Pakistan pointed out that it was the responsibility of the Government to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention by removing the restrictions imposed on trade union activities in relation to radio, television, hospital and other areas pointed out by the Committee of Experts, including the export processing zones. He recalled that a complaint had been lodged before the Committee on Freedom of Association on these very issues. At the time of its election in October 1993 the new Government gave a pledge to the workers that the national labour legislation would be brought into conformity with the ILO standards, and it had now the responsibility to do so in the light of the recommendations made by the ILO direct contacts mission. Pointing out that workers were represented on the tripartite Task Force, he emphasized however that it was the Government's responsibility to put its recommendations into practice as soon as possible. He invited the Committee to urge the Government to honour its commitment to the ILO in the large interests of industrial peace and the welfare of the workers.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information supplied by the Government. It welcomed the direct contacts mission which took place in Pakistan in January 1994. It noted that the mission's report had been forwarded to the Government to serve as the basis for the tripartite Task Force recently created to solve difficulties in the application of the Conventions. The Committee strongly hoped that, in the light of the observations of the Committee of Experts and of the comments and explanations given to the Government by the direct contacts mission, it would be able to review its position and to indicate in its next report the specific measures taken to bring the whole of its legislation and practice into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee hoped that the next detailed report of the Government would show that decisive progress had been made in relation to the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, in the private as well as in the public sector, including the export processing zones.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative emphasized that his Government was fully aware of its responsibilities and committed to fulfil its obligations under ratified Conventions. The Government attached great importance to the Convention and admitted the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention on various points. The Government had, therefore, decided to set up a commission to review and recodify all the labour laws in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention. Due to the changes in the Government, the proposal for the review commission was still pending. He indicated that the ILO had been approached with a request to provide an expert to advise this review commission, but that there had been a delay due to the names proposed by the ILO. The Government had expressed its desire that the expert be from the Asian region. As concerned the various issues raised by the Committee of Experts, he indicated that the question of restoration of trade union rights to employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation was on the agenda of the Cabinet and that a decision would be taken soon. Again, due to the change in Government, a slight delay had occurred. The Cabinet had set up a special committee to review the situation of employees in export processing zones and to make recommendations to the Government. This matter had also been challenged in the courts and the Government was awaiting the judgement in order to take remedial measures in the light of the decision. He reiterated that public servants of Grade 16 and above did not fall within the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, but indicated that the officers were allowed to form associations to protect their rights. Information on the size and activities of these associations would be collected and provided to the ILO in the Government's next report. As concerned the Schedule to the Industrial Relations Ordinance which set out the public utility services in which strikes were prohibited, he reiterated his Government's view that disruption of any of these services was likely to endanger the health and safety of society as a whole. Consideration had not, therefore, been given to amending the Schedule, but this matter would also be reviewed by the proposed commission. He reiterated his Government's position that granting the right of representation to minority unions would severely undermine the importance of the elected representatives. The workers were against such a move. The minority unions could misuse the right to dialogue in order to advocate their own interests instead of representing their own members. This issue would also be the subject of review by the commission. Finally, he indicated that, while trade unions could not be formed in private and public sector hospitals, employees of hospitals had formed associations and were able to act in a wide range of ways for the defence of their members' rights. Again, this issue would be reviewed by the commission.

The Workers' members noted that this case had been discussed in this Committee in the past and that it had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1987. They noted that the Committee of Experts had to examine once again the same seven points which had been the subject of discussions in this Committee. Given the lack of information provided and the lack of progress indicated on certain points, the Workers' members wished to deal with the matters concerning the denial of the right to form trade unions and to place emphasis on developments with respect to the denial of workers' rights in export processing zones. With respect to the denial of the right to form trade unions, they recalled that the Government seemed agreeable to eliminating restrictions on the employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation, the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and the public sector and private sector hospitals. Nevertheless, the situation had not changed and they expressed their concern in this regard. As for the export processing zones, the Workers' members emphasized that, not only were trade union rights affected, but the Finance Act adopted in 1992 permitted the exclusion of workers in the recently created special industrialized zones from the application of the labour legislation. They indicated that the exclusion of the application of standards from certain sectors was contrary to the principle of universality of international law and could not be justified by economic considerations. The Workers' members urged that the necessary political changes take place so that the practice could be brought into conformity with the Convention and requested that the conclusions on this case be placed in a special paragraph. Furthermore, they regretted that the Government's request for ILO technical assistance had not come to pass due to the conditions imposed by the Government.

The Employers' members recalled the long history of this case and the fact that it had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1987. While in 1992 the Committee had thought that the situation was beginning to improve, this year they could only express their disappointment. In 1992 the Government had made a point of stating it was going to request technical assistance, but this had not taken place. Now, the Government was talking about establishing special commissions, but no concrete actions could be noted. They indicated that the lack of action taken by the Government left the impression that there was a certain amount of bad faith on its part. As concerned trade union rights for employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations, they noted that the Government had indicated in previous years that these rights had inadvertently been omitted from the legislation and that inter-ministerial consultations would resolve the matter. It now appeared that the proposed commission was going to take up the issue. It seemed that no progress was being made on this question. The issue of trade union rights in export processing zones was the subject of ongoing analysis by the Committee of Experts and the technical assistance of the Office requested by the Government would probably help clarify the situation. They also considered that the Government could benefit from ILO technical assistance on the comments raised with respect to the right of representation of minority unions. The Employers' members indicated their surprise at the Government representative's statement that associations of high-level public servants could be formed, since this issue had been of great concern to the Government in past years. They requested the Government to indicate the law which permitted such associations to be formed. As for the right to strike, they recalled that they considered the definition of essential services adopted by the Committee of Experts to be too narrow. The determination that railways and public utilities were not essential services did not, in their view, take into account the level of industrial development of a country and other considerations. They urged that the Committee of Experts give consideration to greater flexibility in this matter. As concerned the promotion of workers to supervisory positions for the purpose of undermining unions, they recalled that it had been indicated in 1992 that a procedure for unfair labour practices existed and they had hoped to be provided with some data on how it worked in practice. This was yet another disappointment which raised some questions as to whether there was indeed good faith on the part of the Government. Finally, they recalled that, in 1992, the Government had expressed its concern about hospital employees being permitted to form trade unions because this would lead to strikes in this essential service. Now the Government was saying that these workers had the right to form associations. The facts were not clear. This was all the more reason for ILO technical assistance to be provided to the Government in order to resolve expeditiously the difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Convention.

A Workers' member of Japan associated himself with the statement made by the Workers' members. Restricting his comments to the question of the denial of trade union rights in export processing zones, he recalled that such zones were becoming synonymous with the notion of zones free of trade unions. Many governments considered the ban on trade unions as an incentive to attract foreign investment. As concerned the exclusion of certain workers from the guarantees of the Convention, he insisted that such exclusions were inadmissible and recalled that the Convention applied to all workers whether in the private or in the public sector. The only possible exception which could be made by governments was with respect to the police and the armed forces.

A Workers' member of Senegal emphasized the problem of export processing zones raised in this case and drew attention to the risks of other countries falling into the same situation because of the pressures brought to bear by funding agencies, which imposed changes to the labour legislation or the prohibition of collective agreements on minimum wages, or because of the unfair competition of products exported by countries where labour standards were ignored. He firmly supported the proposal of the Workers' members to mention this case in a special paragraph.

The Government representative repeated that his Government was fully cooperating with the ILO and that no conditions had been placed on the technical assistance, nor had it been refused. The Government had merely suggested that an expert from the Asian region would be welcome. He stated that, while the case had been long outstanding, there had been definite improvements. The Government was now going to set up a commission to examine all the issues and make recommendations. In reply to the question from the Employers' members as to which law now permitted certain workers, who did not previously have the right to organize, to create associations, he stated that the Constitution guaranteed freedom of association to all persons. The only difference was that workers falling within the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance could register. The associations mentioned, although not registered, could act in the defence of their members' rights, but in general, could not call strikes. In reality, however, many of these associations actually went on strike without interference from the Government. He recalled that the ban on the Pakistan Airline employees had been lifted and they had now formed a union. The case of the Pakistan Television Corporation should also have been resolved, but for the delays due to the change in Government. He assured the Committee that they were on the right path and that the case would certainly improve.

The representative of the Secretary-General referred to the offer of a technical assistance mission which had been brought up during the discussion of this case. He indicated that the Office had provided the Government with the names of four experts for this mission from Europe, Africa and Asia, lawyers of high standing, including two members of the Committee of Experts. He stated that the Director-General alone was responsible for designating independent experts to carry out missions in his name. The national sensitivities expressed by the Government had led, exceptionally, to the proposal of four names, none of which had been accepted. If this mission did not take place, it was not due to any absence of good faith, diligence or sensitivity on the part of the Office. He reiterated that the Standards Department remained at the Government's disposal so that an expert, chosen according to the above conditions, could undertake a mission to the country when the Government so wished. The Government representative indicated that he was not aware of the procedure used by the Office. He stated that the Government was under the impression that the panel of names would be given to them and that they could choose one. If, however, the decision was within the Director-General's competence, the Government would accept his decision in this matter. He assured the full cooperation of his Government.

The Employers' members suggested that, in light of the Government's indication with respect to technical assistance, it would not be appropriate to deal with this case in a special paragraph this year. They stressed, however, that they expected concrete progress to be made in the coming year and if this were not the case, then it might be necessary to come back to this question in the future.

The Government member of Sri Lanka also suggested that a special paragraph was not desirable in view of the indications given by the Government representative that every endeavour would be made to improve the situation and that technical assistance would be sought.

The Workers' members, while expressing their understanding for the position expressed by the Employers' members, recalled that promises to improve the situation with the assistance of the ILO had been made by the Government already in 1992, yet no real steps had been taken and the same promises were being made now. They accepted the decision not to raise this case in a special paragraph this year, on the understanding that if there was no concrete progress to report next year, then the case would be dealt with in a special paragraph at that time.

The Committee noted the oral information supplied by the Government representative as well as the debate which had taken place. The Committee recalled with concern the fact that this case had been discussed many times in respect of the discrepancies between national law and practice and the Convention with regard to, in particular, the ban on trade union membership for many categories of workers both in private and public sectors, the granting of false promotions to employees in order to remove them from the category of employees which enjoyed the right to organize, as well as the question of workers in export processing zones. The Committee recalled that its conclusions had been mentioned in a special paragraph in previous reports. It expressed its concern at the new restrictive measures taken and once again urged the Government to reconsider its position with a view to amending its legislation and practice in order to bring them fully into line with this fundamental Convention ratified in 1951. The Committee recalled that technical assistance from the Office was available and expressed the firm hope that it would be possible to note progress in a very short time. The Committee requested the Government to supply detailed information on any measures adopted or contemplated in this connection in its next report. The Workers' members recalled that they had requested a special paragraph for this case.

The Employers' members suggested that, in light of the Government's indication with respect to technical assistance, it would not be appropriate to deal with this case in a special paragraph this year. They stressed, however, that they expected concrete progress to be made in the coming year and if this were not the case, then it might be necessary to come back to this question in the future.

The Government member of Sri Lanka also suggested that a special paragraph was not desirable in view of the indications given by the Government representative that every endeavour would be made to improve the situation and that technical assistance would be sought.

The Workers' members, while expressing their understanding for the position expressed by the Employers' members, recalled that promises to improve the situation with the assistance of the ILO had been made by the Government already in 1992, yet no real steps had been taken and the same promises were being made now. They accepted the decision not to raise this case in a special paragraph this year, on the understanding that if there was no concrete progress to report next year, then the case would be dealt with in a special paragraph at that time.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative stated that the Pakistan International Airlines Act had been duly amended and that the right of association of the workers had been restored without any restriction of limitation. As regards the Pakistan Television Corporation, which was referred to as the Telecommunications Corporation, apparently by mistake, in the report of the Committee of Experts, and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, he admitted that the workers did not have the right to form a union, and explained difficulties encountered in the interministerial consultations which involved not only the Ministry of Labour but the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information. He stated that this issue was being put before the Cabinet and that the Government was doing its best. As regards the export processing zones, where the workers do not have the right to form a trade union, he stressed that it was a temporary departure from the Convention in view of the economic problems, referring to the following factors: economic scenario of the country facing the pressure of population growth; the need for foreign exchange because of the external debt; economic squeeze of the country; the depression caused by recent events in the Gulf area; the decrease of export commodity price. He emphasised the necessity of measures to earn foreign exchange, which had affected the rights of workers, and the action had been taken in the larger interest of the country as a whole, including workers, who would benefit when the ultimate aim was attained. He also indicated that consultations with the workers and the employers had been made in the Standing Labour Committee. He further referred to some examples of the programme of privatisation, where, although the workers did not have the right to dispute about the Government selling its property, the Government noticed the uneasiness of the workers, carried on negotiations with the workers and arrived at an acceptable agreement, including sale of shares in the units to the workers. He repeated that the departure had been made in the larger interest and that the Government was in the process of consultation with the workers and employers, and hoped that it would soon be in a position to take some measures. As for the granting of trade union rights to senior civil servants, the Government representative declared that only servants in grades 16 to 22, that is in the highest posts, were concerned. These servants have the responsibility of the administration of the State and the capacity to supervise and manage, as well as the right to hire and fire people, and could not be considered as workers. These servants have the right to form their own associations as, for example, District Management Group (DMG) which comprises senior civil servants working in different branches of the Government, inside the country as well as abroad. These associations have to respect certain technical requirements, such as to submit their by-laws, but their members have a right to organise meetings, to present proposals and to discuss with the Government. However, if they had trade union rights in the traditional sense, this would pose problems because they are the people who take the decisions and have no counterpart to discuss them with. Further dialogue with the Committee of Experts would be needed on this point because the Government does not know what rights have been denied to the civil servants which, according to the Committee, are supposed to be given to them. Regarding the schedule of eight public utility services in which strikes are banned, the Experts agreed that most of the services concerned are in fact essential services, but they still considered that some other services named in the report do not fall within this definition. Here we enter into a grey zone which can give rise to different interpretations and, in any case, to a debate. This question of exact delimitation of the public utility services presents obviously great problems in respect of the right to strike. As regards the right of the representation of minority unions, the Government representative pointed out that every trade union will be registered if it comprises 20 per cent of the workers concerned, and the possibility to represent workers on a given question is not only reserved to bargaining agents. Also, the management of undertakings is receptive to any request from a group which represents 20 per cent of workers, whether or not it is registered as a trade union. In fact, if one person alone presented a request to the management, he will be listened to. Consequently, no legislative provision prevents a registered trade union, even if it is not the bargaining agent, to present a request to the management in the name of the workers whom it represents. False promotions of certain workers so as to remove them from the category of "workmen" and place them in the "employer" category, thus denying their right to belong to the same union as workers, are really an unfair labour practice. The legislation contains provisions imposing very severe sanctions, including imprisonment, if such practice is proven. The trade unions acting in the multinational enterprises are powerful organisations and present complaints in such cases. Regarding the denial of the right to form trade unions in private and public sector hospitals, the Government representative declared that, even if there exist only associations and not trade unions in the proper sense of the word, they go on strike at the smallest pretext. The Committee of Experts declares only that the employees in hospitals should have the right to form trade unions and negotiate collectively, but the Government has to take into account the total interest of the people in the health sector.

The Workers' members stated that while the report contained the same critical observations as in previous years, the Government seems to be a little more cooperative with the Committee of Experts and this Committee. In fact, the ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PAIC) was lifted; but, according to the report, it still exists for personnel of the Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation. Apparently there was an error as this ban concerned the employees of the television; the observation of the Committee of Experts need not be changed because the television employees should equally benefit from the rights provided by the Convention. Regarding the denial of the fundamental rights to workers in the export processing zones, the Committee of Experts notes certain evolution, but the situation is still not satisfactory: Convention No. 87 must be applied in a universal manner which does not permit any selective application or any exceptions; the Committee of Experts reminded that the existing restrictions are incompatible with the Convention and should be removed. In what concerns other points mentioned in the report of the Committee, trade union rights of senior civil servants, the rights of representations of minority unions, false promotions to undermine the union membership, the ban of trade union rights for employees in hospitals, the Government has given the same replies as the previous year; it is therefore quite normal that the Committee of Experts repeats that there are points incompatible with Convention No. 87. In respect of the right to strike, in particular, the Committee demanded rightfully, in the Workers' opinion, that the Goverment should revise the schedule of services in which strikes are banned. It may be that the Government is facing difficulties in making appropriate modifications in its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. It would be useful, perhaps, if it takes recourse to the assistance of the Office, or hosts a direct contacts mission to find a solution to these problems, which have been discussed already for a number of years and forced this Committee to mention Pakistan in a special paragraph in 1987 and 1988.

The Workers' member of Pakistan stated that due to the requests and the pressure of the supervisory bodies the Government had reinstated in their rights the employees of the PIAC. It should do the same in what concerns export processing zones and the radio and television. The workers are conscious of the economic difficulties facing the country but this could not justify, however, the denial of certain fundamental rights. The economic development must be accompanied by social development. Regarding the export processing zones, Convention No. 87 must apply there like in other areas of the country; freedom of association is not a snag to economic development and can even contribute to the social stability through dialogue. Regarding the public utility services, dialogue is necessary on this subject between the Government and the trade unions which recognise the need to take into account the public interest. On the question of false promotions, the speaker stated that even if the workers have the right to engage legal action for unfair labour practice, the State equally carries responsibility in this respect; it should ensure that the enterprises, national as well as multinational, fully respect the law and, for example, do not give false promotions to employees on a false pretext in order to impede their union membership. Finally, concerning the situation in hospitals, noting that there should exist a procedure for dispute settlement in this essential service, the speaker stated that workers in this sector should have the right to organise their trade unions under the ordinary legislation on labour relations.

The Employers' members, appreciating the detailed and honest character of the Government representative's declaration, stated that many of these problems might well be solved through the technical assistance of the Office, so that the Government would then fully understand what was required from it. Regarding the export processing zones, the Government representative had referred to the economic difficulties facing the country; none the less, the right to organise was of a fundamental nature and, while understanding the fears of the Government of what might happen once freedom of association was granted, this freedom did not have a direct bearing on the economic difficulties. With respect to the trade union rights of senior civil servants, this was one of the points where ILO technical assistance might well be important. Neither the Committee of Experts nor this Committee had ever drawn a line in terms of the basic rights to freedom of association within the public sector, the only line that had been drawn related to the dispute settlement aspect of collective bargaining situations. It may well be that, even if these rights were provided for senior civil servants, they would not take advantage of them; technical assistance would also be useful in this case. The list of services that the Committee of Experts considered to not be essential contained in paragraph 4 of the report of the Committee of Experts on the right to strike and public utility services perfectly reflected the problems encountered by the employers in view of the narrow definition of essential services adopted by the Committee of Experts to take into account the economic difficulties of the country, its stage of industrial development, as well as other considerations in order to establish the schedule of the essential services. The Government could certainly take advantage of the technical assistance of the ILO on the questions of the rights of minority unions and of bargaining agents. With respect to unfair labour practices in multinational companies, it appeared that there existed in the legislation a recourse procedure, but this Committee did not have any data, for example, the number of the corresponding complaints, of the judgements given, of the delays, etc., to state its opinion in full knowledge of the case. Concerning the right to form trade unions in hospitals, the Employers' members underlined that a distinction should be drawn between the right to organise and the right to strike. It seemed that the Experts agreed with the Government, but also that there were some resemblances to the earlier case of the United Kingdom where the Government feared that the right to organise entails the right to strike. It seemed that in this context a dialogue with the trade unions may result in the kind of stability that the Government was seeking, encouraging it to recognise the right to organise, which was a fundamental aspect of Convention No. 87. The Employers' members, pointing out that this was a complicated case, stated that they saw a lot of good will on the part of the Government and that it should take full advantage of the assistance that may be provided by the ILO.

A Workers' member of Liberia said that the Government representative, admitting that Pakistan was in conflict with the Convention on certain points, invoked as justification the burden of the debt. It was a common problem of a number of countries of the Third World. Workers were never consulted when the money was lent out by the international monetary organisations to their countries, but were the first to bear the consequences when the State had to reimburse the debt in question. Workers should not be made to bear the consequences of bad management of international credits provided to a State. Convention No. 87 was unequivocal: workers had a right to form trade unions and, when a government undertook for any reason whatsoever to deny them this right, this was not acceptable.

A Workers' member of Papua New Guinea endorsed comments made previously by the Workers' member of Pakistan. He said that the response given by the Government representative seemed to be influenced by the restrictions imposed on the Third World by the IMF and the World Bank. He was also of the opinion that, independently of their grade in the public administration of any country, senior civil servants should benefit from the right to organise, because they formed part of the total workforce and their efficiency depended to a large extent on the support and cooperation of their subordinates. Also, the workers in public and private hospitals should have the right to form trade unions of their choice. Finally, the economic difficulties should not be invoked by the governments with a view to limiting the rights of workers.

The Government representative indicated that this Government would request the Office for technical assistance concerning the application of the Convention.

The Committee noted the information given by the Government. It felt that the Government's attitude on certain points under consideration seemed to be more positive, moving in the direction of harmonising the legislation with the requirements of the Convention. In view, however, of the long history of the Committee's concern on the points raised by the Committee of Experts, it considered the steps taken so far not to be satisfactory. It welcomed the willingness of the Government to ask the ILO for technical assistance and it therefore hoped that the Government would, within a short time, reconsider its position with a view to changing the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention and report to the ILO on the changes in the near future.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

The Government has supplied the following information:

Trade union rights in Pakistan International Airlines

As regards the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning non-observance of the Convention, the Government states that trade union rights have been restored in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). A copy of the legislation restoring the trade union activities in PIAC has been furnished to the Secretariat for information.

Promotion of union activitists as an anti-union tactic

As regards the complaint by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions, alleging that almost all the multinational companies operating in Pakistan have tried to reduce the membership of their trade unions by promoting their employees to the management cadre and redesignating them as "supervisors" and "officers" without any change in the duties, functions or authority. The Government states that according to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (which inter alia governs and regulates the employer-employee relations in the country), the term "worker" as defined under subsection (viii) of section 2, does not include any person who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs.800 per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. An employee would not be treated as a "worker" unless he or she was working in a supervisory capacity and was simultaneously drawing wages of more than Rs.800 per mensem. These are the two prerequisites for excluding an employee from the purview of the term "worker". In the instant case, the complainant Federation has stated that while the wages of the workers are being raised, they are not being vested with the authority which otherwise rests, in the managerial cadre. But it is clear from the wording of the legislation that simply by increasing their emoluments workers are not excluded from the purview of the term "worker" as defined in the IRO. In terms of section 15(1)(a) of the IRO, 1969, imposition of any condition in a contract of employment seeking to restrain the right of a person, who is a party to such a contract, to join a trade union or continue his membership of a trade union, constitutes unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. Further, section 15(1)(c) of the IRO stipulates that discrimination against any person with regard to any employment, promotion, condition of employment or working condition on the ground that such person is, or is not a member or officer of a trade union, is also an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.

If the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions feels that the employers are imposing conditions on their employees to receive higher wages without any supervisory role, which is tantamount to unfair labour practice on the part of the employer, they can approach the Labour Courts in the country including the National Industrial Relations Commission set up exclusively to hear and adjudicate the differences and disputes between labour and management including questions relating to unfair labour practices. The law provides penalties both on the employers and workers if they commit any of the unfair labour practices as specified in the IRO. In case of unfair labour practice on the part of the employers referred to above, the punishment includes one year's imprisonment which may be extended by another six months and a fine of Rs.5,000 or both. There is, therefore, no substance to the Federation's complaint against the Government. Rather, the Federation is aggrieved by certain decisions of management of some of the multinational companies, operating in Pakistan. The appropriate course is for them to approach the judicial bodies established for the purpose of dealing with such grievances. The law on the subject is quite clear.

As for the question of granting trade union rights to civil servants, the Government reiterates that civil servants engaged in administration of the State do not fall within the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; hence they cannot be treated like industrial workers.

There are 25 associations of civil servants whose main functions are:

(a) to unite all government servants for their common cause;

(b) to protect and safeguard the rights and privileges of their members by constitutional means and to strive through legitimate means and methods to promote their joint and several interests;

(c) to assist in protecting the legitimate rights of their members and securing redressal of their grievances;

(d) to establish closer and better relationships between the authorities and the members of associations with a view to improving overall efficiency in performance;

(e) to do all lawful acts necessary to strengthen the association as a whole.

Trade union rights in export processing zones

As for the grant of trade union rights in export processing zones, the Government points out that such zones were set up to boost industrialisation and to enable workers and employers to work together in harmony and in an environment of industrial peace and good labour-management relations. This objective has been achieved to a great extent. This is why the Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, has not been repealed or amended. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to allowing the formation and functioning of trade unions by removing all unreasonable restrictions in this regard. The Committee of Experts is, accordingly, assured that all such restrictions will be removed so far as the right to organise in export processing zones is concerned.

Restrictions of the right to strike

As concerns the observation regarding prohibition of strikes or lockouts, the Government states that the Federal or Provincial Governments can prohibit strikes or lockouts before or after their commencement only in establishments of national importance or those engaged in public utility services. The schedule of public utility services annexed to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is confined to eight services only: (i) The generation, production, manufacture, or supply of electricity, gas, oil or water to the public; (ii) Public conservancy or sanitation system; (iii) Hospitals and ambulance services; (iv) Fire-fighting service; (v) Postal, telegraph or telephone service; (vi) Railways and airways; (vii) Ports; (viii) Watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment.

While appreciating the concern of the Committee of Experts for the workers' right to strike, the Government is of the view that, if any of the services being provided by the above establishments is disrupted, it is most likely to endanger the health and safety of the society or part of the population. The list of the public utility services is already a bare minimum and if any of the above activities is taken out of the said list, allowing strikes, or lockouts, it is certainly going to affect the interest of the community as a whole.

Right of representatives of minority trade unions

As far as the right of representation by minority unions is concerned, the Government reiterates that if a non-CBA union is allowed to have a dialogue with the employers in the presence of the elected representative of the workers, i.e. the CBA, it would undermine the very existence of the democratically elected representatives of workers vis-à-vis the others. Both the workers and the CBA have been arguing against such a practice publicly and in the course of tripartite discussions on the subject. They feel that the workers' rights are infringed when a particular employer, in total disregard of the democratic norms, establishes contact with a non-elected/minority trade union.

In addition a Government representative reiterated the written information, communicated by the Government. Referring to the annex to the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance which concerned services in the public interest and listed the services for which strike and lock-out could be prohibite, he added that the Government only very rarely resorted to that legislation.

The Workers' members said that restoring trade union rights to Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) had been a positive step, but that the Committee of Experts had been obliged to repeat the observations it had made in preceding years on a whole series of points because it had not received the Government's report in time. Some of the information contained in the Governments' document was inclomplete, some was not clear enough, and some was not very convincing. Concerning the trade union rights in export processing zones, the Government's reply was encouraging in so far as it promised to remove all restrictions, but at the same time it was worrying because it specified that all unreasonable restrictions would be removed. The Government did not provide any reply concerning restrictions on the right to strike which were set out in sections 32 and 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Again concerning resource to the right to strike, the Government response that strikes were prohibited for a series of "public utility services" only partially clarified the situation, since the concept was much broader than that of "essential services". Neither was the Government's reply concerning the anti-union tactics of some multinational enterprises satisfactory, since under the Convention all workers had the right to organise. The same comment went for the Government's position regarding the right of representation of minority unions. All the replies provided by the Government should be examined by the Committee of Experts, but the present Committee should nevertheless stress that the Government should take all the necessary steps to remove existing restrictions to trade union rights, which were clearly incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.

The Employers' members noted that there had been an improvement on certain points. Trade union rights had been restored in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) and the position was now uncleear in that respect. Concerning the trade union rights of senior public servants, the Committee of Experts had requested information about the number and the activities of associations to which such public servants had the right to belong; those facts were important but would not necessarily provide specific information on the exercice of freedom of association. It was important to know whether there was a legal restriction on exercising trade union rights linked to the grade of public servants; such a restriction ought not to exist. Concerning the widespread restriction of trade union rights in export processing zones; the Governmen had promised to modify the legislation on that point and the question should be re-examined in the light of the modifications made. Concerning the prohibition of strikes and lock-outs in services that were in the public interest, the application of the criteria established by the Committee of Experts was not simple because essential services could differ according to country - the case of rail transport was one such example. In any event, the argument did not form a basis on which to deviate from the provisions of the Convention. The situation regarding the right of represntation of minority unions was unclear, and clarification were necessary on that point. With respect to the "management was fustified or whether it was artificial and contrary to the legislation. Much remained to be clarified but it seemed that, more than in the past, the Government had shown the will to improve the situation and it was to be hoped that progress would be seen by next year.

The Workers' member of Pakistan said that it was true that PIAC staff now enjoyed trade union rights and that some workers who had been dismissed had now been reinstated; but he requested clarification regarding the situation of trade union rights in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. Concerning the unfair work practices of some multinational enterprises, it was sometimes difficult for workers to bring matters before the courts and the Government ought perhaps to use the labour administration to bring employers up before the court and put an end to such unfair work parctices. Moreover, the different treatment of workers in export processing zones denied them basic trade union rights; the Government should change that legislation. Within the framework of the structural adjustment programme and the privatisation of enterprises, workers had fears for their security of employment; the Government ought to ensure that the workers' right to enployment was protected. Concerning the trade union rights of public servants, the definition of public servants engaged in the administration of the State should be restrictive. The Government should provide clarification on these various points.

The Government representative said that the draft law intended to restore trade union rights in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation had been submitted to the National Assembly but, following the dissolution of the National Assembly, the draft would be submitted to the new National Assembly in two months' time. Concerning the suggestion for the Government intervention to accelerate the examination of unfair work practices of multinational enterprises, the Government could only advise the courts to speed up their examination of such matter. With respect to the request for clarification made by the Employers' members concerning the "promotion" practice of some multinational enterprises, two criteria evidently had to be fulfilled to be considered "management", i.e. to have a salary that was higher than a certain amount and to carry out management functions. If one of those creteria was not fulfilled, it would be an un fair work practice and should be brought before the Court. Public servants came under public service regualtions and were allowed to form association. Those associations could make demands, and they had used that right recently in requesting wage increase that the Government had promised to accord. In any event, the comments made on that particular point had been noted and would be brought to the attention of the Government. Furthermore, a Committee had been established to ensure job security of workers within the programme for privatisation of public enterprises. It should be noted, in that context, that under the terms of the legislation it was very difficult to dismiss a worker. Minority unions had a perfect right to protect the interests of their members. In addition, the Government had no intention to impose unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of trade union rights in export processing zones. The Government would study the question and the legislation would certainly be modified before the next session of the Committee. finally, under public serve regulation, public servants and their associations could, if necessary, lodge complaints to the courts at the provicial and federal levels.

The Workers' member of Pakistan hoped that the promises made by the Government representative would be kept and that the observations of the Committee of Experts would be duly taken into account. It was necessary to stress the job security of workers because there was real concern regarding the programme for privatisation of public enterprises.

The Government representative said that it was very difficult to dismiss a worker because a specific procedure had to be followed. The Government intended to modify a whole series of labour laws; it had announced a new employment policy and had undertaken tripartite consultation. The Workers' member of Pakistan could rest assured that all the questions he had raised would be examinid when the new legislative policy was drawn up.

The Committee took note of the report of the Committee of Experts, of the written and oral information provided by the Government and of the discussion which had taken place within the Committee. The Committee noted with interest that the legislation concerning the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) had been amended in 1989 to give trade union rights to workers employed in that corporation. The Committee also noted that the Government was going to submit to the National Assembly a draft law to restore trade union rights in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. Nevertheless, the Committee was obliged to express its concern at the fact that law and practice had not been in conformity with the provision of the senior public servants and restriction of the right to representation of minority unions. The Committee also noted with concern that workers in export processing zones still did not enjoy trade union rights as a whole. The Committee noted that the government intended to adpot legislation to remedy that situation. The Committee hoped that it would be in a position to note, in the very near future, that measures had been taken to ensure full application of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative, referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the restrictions on the right to strike, stated that under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, if no settlement was reached during bilateral negotiations, or conciliation, and the parties to the dispute could not agree to refer the matte an arbitrator under section 37 the workers could go on strike on the expiry of the period of notice or after a declaration by condiliator that the conciliation proceedings had failed. Consequently the right to strike was recognised by legislation and was not prohibited. At any time either before of after the strike began the parties to the dispute could apply to the labour courts for adjudication. The right to strike was therefore applicable to all workers under the law of the land but was subject to reasonable restrictions. On their part, the employers had the right to lockout. The Government could intervene and submit the conflict to arbitration only in cases where the strike lasted for more than 30 days and if the public interest was at stake. The only exception to that rule were the five public utility services listed in the Ordinance where the federal government could intervene if it considered that the strike endangered the security of Pakistan or caused damage to the national economy. Judicial review of any action on the part of the Government was available to determine whether the government action was in the public interest or not. These powers had been exercised by the Government very sparingly in the past, and not a single case had recently occurred. The Government representative stated that his Government had already submitted a detailed report which dealt with other questions.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for his declaration which referred mainly to the question of the right to strike. Unfortunately he had indicated nothing about the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning trade union rights and related topics. The Committee on Freedom of Association had just examined a series of cases dealing with violations of trade union rights in Pakistan during the period of martial law (1981-85). During this period laws were adopted concerning Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) that prohibited trade union activities in this corporation. The Committee on Freedom of Association had criticised this legislation on several occasions and had requested that it be modified. The Governing Body of the ILO had also expressed the same views. This matter had also been discussed last year and still remained unsolved. The observation of the Committee of Experts also mentioned the problem of the supervision of trade union funds by the authorities, but the Government representative had not referred to this in his comments. The Committee of Experts had expressed its hope that the Government would do its utmost to adopt the necessary measures for the full application of the Convention in the very near future but nothing had been done and nothing in the declaration of the Government representative appeared to indicate any reasons to believe that something would be done. Consequently, since the present Convention was not being observed and since the case had been discussed the preceding year, and given the lack of progress, the Workers' members requested that this case be included in a special paragraph.

The Employers' members stated that the Committee of Experts had mentioned several points concerning restrictions on trade union rights. Following the abolition of martial law, the situation should have slowly returned to normal. But for the personnel of (PIAC) the prohibitions against forming trade unions and belonging to them had remained. These restrictions were certainly excessive even if PIAC was considered to be a public service which might be subject to certain restrictions. The Employers' members did not want to go into great detail about restrictions on the right to strike, but wished to recall that the Government had stated the necessity to have such restrictions in export processing zones, and that it was nevertheless necessary to consider whether certain changes should be introduced. Today the Government representative had said nothing on that point nor about the excessively strict supervision of trade union funds provided by legislation, that gave rise to arbitrary interference by the authorities, and ran counter to the principles of the present Convention. Nor had he said anything about minority trade unions which should have the same rights as majority trade unions, and should not be underprivileged. Since the Government representative had said nothing about possible changes in this respect, the situation remained in contradiction with the principles of the Convention and the Employers' members considered that this case should be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Government representative recalled that the various questions referred to by the Committee of Experts were dealt with in the report submitted by his Government and for that reason he had not explicitly referred to those points in his preceding statement but would do so now since there appeared to be a misunderstanding. He categorically stated that his Government had not supervised or controlled trade union funds, but that the law provided that the Registrar might have the audits of a trade union produced at any time. In the last 30 years since the independence of Pakistan there had not been a single allegation of interference in trade union funds. The legal provision was designed to protect trade unions and their affiliates. In this respect he recalled that the illiteracy rate in his country was about 26 per cent and that the funds in question are levied by a check-off system. Whether the right to produce the audits was exercised or not was something for the workers to say on a case-by-case basis. As regards minority trade unions, he indicated that there were more than 6,000 registered trade unions in Pakistan. The minority trade unions were trying to destabilise the collective bargaining agents. The fact that an employer would not negotiate with the minority union was because the workers themselves had requested that through the tripartite bodies at the national level. He stated that legislation in Pakistan divided rights into two categories according to whether they referred to matters of right or matters of interest. The collective bargaining agent could negotiate with the employers on matters of interest, but concerning matters of right, the legislation stipulated that in case a right was violated by law, a collective agreement or arbitration, the worker could appeal to court individually in order that his rights be restored. For these individuaI complaints article 25 (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordnance stipulated that the worker or the collective bargaining agent could apply to the courts. The Committee of Experts stated that the workers belonging to minority trade unions could not be represented by a minority trade union in their individual complaints. But the law grants the right to lodge individual complaints before the courts to the worker himself. The provision referred to by the Committee of Experts had been adopted in good faith and at the request of workers and employers and not as a result of a government proposal. As regards the trade union activity in PIAC the Government representative acknowledged that no trade union activities were allowed so far. This was due to objective conditions and particular circumstances that did not permit such activities, as stated by the Government to the Committee of Experts. It should not be forgotten that Pakistan was the only country in South Asia that had ratified the present Convention and that PIAC was only one enterprise in a population of 100 millions, and that all the workers in industry and commerce enjoyed the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative and of the discussion within the present Committee. The Committee observed with concern that there had been no progress towards bringing the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee consequently expressed the firm hope that efforts would be made to reconsider the legislation in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts with a view to eliminating the serious divergencies which had existed for many years. It decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its general report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative noted that, under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, if no settlement was arrived at during conciliation procedures and the parties to the dispute did not agree to refer the matter to an arbitrator under section 37, the workers could go on strike on the expiry of the period of notice or after a declaration by the conciliator that the procedures had failed, whichever was the later. At any time either before of after commencement of the strike, the parties to the dispute could also apply to the labour courts for adjudication. The right to strike was therefore available to workers under the law of the land, but was subject to reasonable restrictions. The Government could intervene only in cases where the strike lasted for more than 30 days if the public interest was affected - the only exception covered public utility services which were listed in the Ordinance. Judicial review of cases was available to determine whether the Government's action was in the public interest or not. These powers had been exercised very sparingly in the past - there had not been a single case.

Regarding the supervision of trade union funds, he stated that illiterate workers were not able to exercise effective control over union funds and that it was in their interest - to safeguard them from misconduct and misappropriation - that the registrar was empowered to have any financial document of the union produced before him. The idea had never been to interfere in the working of unions. Under the Prime Minister's five-point programme, the literacy rate was to be raised to 50 per cent of the population by 1990. The Government's investigation was confined only to asking for financial statements.

As for the position of minority unions, he stated that the position of freely elected collective bargaining agents in each establishment would be destabilised if negotiations were permitted with minority unions. Individual workers had the right to bring grievances to the notice of the employer themselves, or through their shop stewards, or their collective bargaining agent; the right to negotiate, however, remained with the collective bargaining agent which was elected by the majority of the workers in an establishment. He pointed out that martial law had been lifted on 31 December 1985 and that it was no longer correct to say that trade unions were forbidden under martial law.

The Workers' members noted that in 1983 this Committee had received oral information concerning the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association. It was clear to them that the current provisions and practice enabled the Government to do as it pleased to prohibit or stop strikes by imposing arbitration. The Committee of Experts considered the list of public utility services to be too broad. As for the supervision of trade union funds, they felt that the illiteracy argument had no place here since there were sufficient union leaders and activists who could read and write. Convention No. 87 provided for the independence of trade union organisations on financial questions; intervention was to be based only on abuses or when there were complaints. Other problems also existed for certain government employees and minority unions. A fundamental change was required in the legislation and practice.

The Employers' members, noting that the Committee of Experts was aware of the economic difficulties mentioned several times by the Government, understood this problem. Despite this, however, a number of changes were necessary. Some measures had been explained by martial law; as this no longer existed, this was a good reason to provide a written report. As regarded stringent government controls on financial matters, they recognised the Government's good intentions, but noted that it was not for governments to prevent individuals or organisations from making mistakes. The Convention clearly stated that employers' and workers' organisations should be responsible for their own internal affairs and should be free from interference. As for the disadvantaged position of smaller trade unions, the Government representative had defended the restrictions without announcing any basic changes.

The Worker member of France expressed surprise at the Government's argument mentioning that workers were illiterate because, in his experience, they were particularly careful with money and managed it very well. Numerous advisory missions had visited Pakistan, the most recent apparently in March 1987 when the Government should have fulfilled its obligations to reply to the Committee of Expert's comments. How could they not then wonder at the Government's attitude and its failure to respect its obligations? This was a serious case.

The Worker member of Pakistan stressed that the workers had been pressing the Government on this question both at the national and international levels. He noted that Case No. 1175 before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerned the trade union rights of workers in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. Workers might be illiterate, but they had the best sense of responsibility when it came to looking after their own affairs. Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention clearly stated that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights laid down by the Convention; the Committee of Experts wanted the Government to review the position so that such matters would be left entirely to the courts. The Government might benefit from direct contacts with the ILO so that discrepancies between the current legislation and the Convention could be remedied.

The Government representative stressed that a very well-intentioned government action was being misunderstood. All that was required was for unions to supply certain statements (annual accounts or financial documents) which they prepared in any case for themselves as a matter of routine for submission to the Government. What interest could the Government have in asking for such accounts other than to ensure that there was no misappropriation of funds or abuse of the workers' rights? The Worker member of Pakistan knew very well the situation on this point, which could not be compared to that existing in Western Europe. He agreed that workers were capable of managing financial affairs, but emphasised cases of wastage and sharp practices. The Government just wanted to be kept informed and did not intend to control union finances.

The Committee decided to include the conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report (see under Convention No. 111).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Articles 2–9 of the Convention. The scope of the Convention. Excluded categories of workers. Informal economy workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the non-agriculture sector, 72.5 per cent of workers are engaged in the informal sector. The Committee further notes that according to the Government, Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2012, the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (BIRA) 2022, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act (KPIRA) 2010, the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA) 2010 apply to formal sector workers, and workers of informal sector can only establish or join associations established under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Committee notes that in reply to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) observations of 2020, the Government indicates that associations formed under Societies Registration Act do not have the capacity of representing the occupational interests of their members in relation to the employer and the authorities to the same extent, nor do they benefit from the same legal guarantees as a trade union formed under IRA and its provincial variants. The Committee recalls that workers in the informal economy have the right, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations freely and their organizations should benefit from all the guarantees enshrined in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative measures at the federal and provincial levels, with a view to guaranteeing the rights of informal economy workers under the Convention, for example by including them within the scope of the IRA and its provincial variants. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard. Noting further that section 1(3) of the IRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA provide that they apply to “all persons employed in any establishment or industry”, but BIRA 2022 has adopted a different language in its section 1(4), providing that it shall apply to “all workers and employers at all workplaces”, a workplace being defined as “any premises, where work is carried out by one or more persons” the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the wording in section 1(4) of BIRA 2022 extends the scope of the act to informal economy workers whose place of work could be a public street, their home, land refills and the like.

Agricultural and fisheries workers. The Committee had previously noted that agricultural and fisheries workers are excluded from the scope of the IRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA. The Committee notes that according to the Government: (i) the definition of scope of the PIRA does not cover sectors like agriculture and fisheries; (ii) in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, despite the absence of express legal coverage of these sectors, there is no bar on registration of their workers’ unions and in practice associations in dairy farms, fisheries and bee-keeping businesses have already been registered; (iii) the IRA does not prevent workers from joining any trade union in any commercial establishment including in agriculture and fisheries; (iv) BIRA 2022 is applicable to all sectors of work. The Committee recalls that the SIRA expressly includes workers employed in fisheries and agricultural establishments in its scope (section 3(1)). The Committee notes that according to the Government, under PIRA, even the establishments formally engaging in these activities are not considered within the scope of the law, while under the IRA and the KPIRA these establishments are implicitly covered and SIRA and BIRA clearly include them. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that a large proportion of agricultural and fisheries workers are not employed in any establishment but engage in their activities in an informal manner. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial legislation is amended so that all agricultural and fisheries workers, whether engaged in the formal or informal sector, enjoy the rights conferred by the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of measures taken in this regard.

Self-employed workers. The Committee had previously noted that the industrial relations legislation seems to exclude self-employed workers and had requested the Government to ensure that they can benefit from their rights under the Convention. The Government indicates in this regard that: (i) section 2 of the Trade Organization Act, 2013 defines that a trade organization is formed or intended to be formed with the object of promoting any trade, industry or service or any combination thereof; (ii) in Sindh two unions and one federation of home-based workers were registered; (iii) the Government is striving to bring self-employed persons under the umbrella of the legislation and modalities are being discussed to provide the right of union formation to self-employed persons; and (iv) under the KPIRA several unions/associations were registered for markets, shopkeepers, transport owners, drivers, and goods transport, even though no section of the KPIRA deals with the trade unions of self-employed persons. The Committee notes with interest that the wording in section 1(4) of BIRA 2022 seems to include self-employed workers within the scope of this act. Recalling that the self-employed should benefit from all the guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide details about the modalities envisaged under the KPIRA and similar laws in other provinces to provide the right to establish and join unions to self-employed persons and to ensure that the discussions in this regard will soon result in the effective recognition and exercise of their rights under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments in this regard.

Domestic workers directly recruited by households. The Committee notes that the wording of section 1(3) of the IRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA, seems to exclude domestic workers directly recruited by households – as opposed to those employed by firms – from the scope of these acts and therefore from the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It notes, however, that section 1(4) of the BIRA 2022 seems to include them, as it provides coverage for “workers at all workplaces”. Recalling that under the Convention, domestic workers have the right, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations freely, and their organizations should benefit from all the guarantees enshrined in the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to provide them with a legal framework within which they can fully exercise these rights, for example by extending the scope of industrial relations legislation to this group of workers, or by adopting specific laws covering them at the federal and provincial levels. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments in this regard.

Tribal areas of Balochistan. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the BIRA excluded tribal areas form its scope. The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s indication that words “excluding tribal areas” have been omitted from section 1(2) of BIRA 2022, which now reads that “it extends to whole of Balochistan”.

Article 2. Right of workers to establish and join the organization of their choosing. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 6 of the IRA, which provides that any trade union may apply for registration “provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment”. The Committee notes that according to the Government, while in practice, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) registers trade unions irrespective of whether any one or two unions are already registered with it, the Government is taking steps to amend the IRA. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments in this regard.

Restriction to trade union pluralism. Minimum membership requirements. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend sections 8(2)(b) of the IRA and 6(2)(b) of the provincial acts, which provide that when there are already two unions or more registered in the establishment, group of establishments or industry, no other trade union is entitled to registration unless it has as members not less than 20 per cent of the workers employed in the corresponding unit. The Government indicates in this regard that the matter has been discussed by the provinces with the social partners and: (i) the government of Punjab was of the view that this requirement of 20 per cent of membership for registration is to avoid mushroom growth of ineffective pocket unions as there seems to be no efficacy for a trade union especially in the presence of a certified collective bargaining agent (CBA) union that invariably enjoys the membership of more than 50 per cent of the workers; (ii) in Sindh, the matter was discussed in the Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committee (PTCC) and it was agreed that clause 6(2)(b) of SIRA 2013 be omitted and a new subsection (4) in section 4 be inserted which would provide: “the registration of a contesting union shall be cancelled by Registrar, if the union secures less than 5 per cent of total votes casted in referendum conducted for determination of CBA”; (iii) the government of Balochistan consulted the social partners in PTCC regarding this matter, but they remained unanimous to maintain the requirement of one fifth of total number of workers. The PTCC opined that any removal of this requirement will open the flood gate of pocket unions. The Committee welcomes the agreement reached in the Sindh PTCC and trusts that it will be soon reflected in the adoption of an amendment to the SIRA. Regarding the situation in the other provinces and at the federal level, it once again recalls that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid a proliferation of competing organizations, the right of workers to be able to establish organizations of their own choosing implies that trade union pluralism must remain possible in all cases. It is important for workers to be able to change trade unions or to establish a new union for reasons of independence, effectiveness, or ideological choice. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that at the federal level, as well as in the provinces of Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, workers may establish organizations of their own choosing and that no distinction as to the minimum membership requirement is made between the first two or more registered trade unions and newly created ones. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. In its previous comments the Committee had noted that certain provisions of the federal and provincial legislation regulate in detail the internal functioning of trade unions. The Committee recalls in this regard that section 8 of the IRA and section 6 of its provincial variants provide in their subsection 1(j) that the constitution of a union should provide for a term for which a trade union officer may be elected and specifies that it should not exceed two years; and subsection 1(l), respectively, provide for the frequency of meetings of a union’s executive and general body. The Committee also recalls that the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) (under section 48(2) of the IRA), or the Labour Court (under sections 62(2) of the BIRA 2022, 63(2) of the KPIRA, 59(3) of the PIRA and 60(3) of SIRA) have the power to order a person who has been expelled from a trade union to be restored to its membership or to order that he or she be paid out of the union funds such sum by way of compensation or damages as the Commission or Labour Court thinks just. The Committee notes that according to the Government: (i) there is no restriction on the office bearers to punish or expel union members according to their constitution and bylaws under section 6(1)(e) of KPIRA; (ii) the government of Punjab is of the view that there should be some legal restriction on term of union officers, otherwise a union may incorporate 10 or 20 years term in its constitution; (iii) the government of Sindh replied that the two years term of the union officers aims to restore a transparent and fair means to provide all workers the opportunity to contest in elections, and its omission could lead to the transformation of an executive body into a monarchy. The provincial government further indicated that section 60(3) of the SIRA provides protection to the workers in case of illegal strike or lockout; and (iv) the government of Balochistan reported that the Committee’s recommendation was thoroughly discussed in the PTCC meeting; however, worker members emphasized that the limit to the officers’ term should remain in the law. Concerning the KPIRA, the Committee notes that section 63(2) of the same act seems to exclude the application of any contrary provision of the constitution of a trade union. Concerning the legal limit to the term of union officers, it notes that pursuant to the information submitted by the Government, in cases where unions were unable to account for the delay in the mandatory renewal of their officers and could not produce their record, they were guided by the Registrar to dissolve as per the dissolution clause of their constitutions and asked to apply afresh. The Committee notes that in practice, unions who have not managed to renew their officers every two years have been dissolved by the Registrar. The Committee once again recalls that it has always considered that national legislation should only lay down formal requirements respecting trade union constitutions, except regarding the need to follow a democratic process and to ensure a right of appeal for the members. The right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes means that matters such as setting the period of terms of office, the frequency of the meetings of organs, or sanctions against members should be left to be determined by the unions themselves in their constitutions and by-laws. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the federal and provincial legislation is revised in this respect and to provide information of developments in this regard.

Qualification of go-slow as an unfair labour practice. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the IRA and its provincial variants outlaw go-slow as an unfair labour practice and had requested the government to ensure that the law is amended in this respect. The Committee notes with satisfaction that BIRA 2022 has omitted go-slow from the list of unfair labour practices and welcomes the Government’s indication that the federal and other provincial acts on the subject will be amended after due consultation with the tri-partite constituents. The Committee further notes that the government of Punjab is of the view that it is not in the national interest to allow intentional go-slow to be legal. The Committee recalls that the restrictions to the forms of strike action including go-slow can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful. The Committee expects that sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA and 18(1)(e) of the KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA will be soon amended so as to omit the qualification of peaceful go-slow as an unfair labour practice and requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

Grounds for prohibition or restriction of strikes. The Committee notes the following grounds for restriction or prohibition of strikes in the federal and provincial legislation: (i) sections 42(3) of the IRA, 43(3) of the BIRA, 44(3) of the KPIRA, 40(3) of the PIRA and 41(3) and (4) of the SIRA, provide that, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the Government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that the Government can also prohibit a strike at any time before the expiry of 30 days if “it is satisfied that the continuance of such a strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”; (ii) the Government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute “of national importance” (section 45 of the IRA) or in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement (sections 45 of the IRA and KPIRA, 41 of the PIRA and 42 of the SIRA); (iii) a strike carried out in contravention of the above sections, is deemed illegal by virtue of sections 43(1)(c) of the IRA, 58(1)(c) of the BIRA, 59(1)(c) of the KPIRA, 55(1)(c) of the PIRA and 56(1)(c) of the SIRA; and (iv) according to the schedules of the IRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA the lists of public utility services include services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) pursuant to section 44 of BIRA 2022, the government shall not prohibit strike or lock except in exceptional situations – essential services, those involved in the administration of the state and police and armed forces, or in situations of national emergency; provided the same will be resolved by conciliation or compulsory arbitration. The provincial government has no more absolute power to declare the strike illegal before or after its commencement; (ii) the federal and other provincial laws would be amended after due consultation with the social partners; (iii) the government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has assured it will take up the matter in the PTCC meeting in the near future; and (iv) the government of Punjab explained that the current law provides that an unnecessary strike which fails to resolve the dispute after 30 days is discontinued and an amicable solution is facilitated by the government in the interest of all stakeholders. The Committee notes with concern that the BIRA 2022, still empowers the government to prohibit a strike that has lasted more than 30 days and its schedule of public utility services, in which a strike is prohibited, still includes services that are not essential services in the strict sense; it further notes with concern that no progress is reported in the other provinces and at the federal level. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (1) in the public services for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in the event of an acute national or local crisis; or (3) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee considers that not every strike lasting longer than 30 days fulfils these conditions and that services such as oil production, postal services, railways, and airways do not normally constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, although they are important public services in which a minimum service could be required in case of a strike. Therefore, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that federal and provincial acts are amended so that any prohibition or restriction of the right to strike is brought into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on developments in this respect.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that: (i) following the prohibition of a strike by the Government pursuant to the sections referred to above, the dispute is referred to the NIRC or the Labour Court for adjudication; (ii) a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, may apply to the NIRC or Labour Court, as applicable, for adjudication of the dispute (sections 42(2) of the IRA, 43(2) of the BIRA, 44(2) of the KPIRA, 40(2) of the PIRA and 41(2) of the SIRA); (iii) pending adjudication, the NIRC/Labour Court can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (sections 61 of the IRA, 57 of the BIRA, 58 of the KPIRA, 54 of the PIRA and 55 of the SIRA); and, (iv) section 42 of the BIRA provides that if the board of conciliators fails to settle a dispute in a public utility service or related to an industry of high economic and social importance, and the parties do not propose a panel of three arbitrators by consent, the government may appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court for arbitration in the said dispute. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and valid for a period not exceeding two years as may be fixed by the arbitrator. The Government indicates in this regard that the provisions in the federal and provincial laws allow prohibition of continuation of an existing strike by a court of competent jurisdiction when the case is pending adjudication, however, the matter will be placed before the FTCC and all PTCCs and after their recommendations, an amendment in law will be proposed to the competent authority. The Committee notes that the provisions of federal and provincial acts allow the NIRC or the Labour Court to prohibit virtually any strike pending adjudication of the dispute; and in Balochistan, the new law provides for compulsory adjudication in disputes in public utility services, which include services such as oil production, postal services, railways, and airways, or in disputes related to “an industry of high economic and social importance”. The Committee notes with concern that this system amounts to a denial of the right to strike as it makes it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. It recalls that recourse to compulsory arbitration is admissible only in cases where the strike can be restricted or even prohibited, or at the request of both parties to the dispute (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 153). Noting the Government’s renewed expression of intent to place this matter before the tripartite consultative committees, the Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures so that the federal and provincial legislation is amended with a view to restricting recourse to compulsory arbitration in line with the principles outlined above. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments in this respect.

Penal sanctions. The Committee notes that: (i) commencing, continuing, instigating others to take part in, or expending or supplying money to, or otherwise acting in furtherance or support of an illegal strike or a go-slow is an unfair labour practice (sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA, 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA, and SIRA) punishable by a fine of up to 20,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR) (sections 68(3) of the KPIRA, 64(3) of the PIRA and 65(3) of the SIRA), and up to 25,000 PKR in Balochistan (section 67(3) BIRA) and/or imprisonment which may extend to 30 days (section 67(3) of the IRA); and (ii) contravening an order to call off a strike is sanctioned as follows: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; and debarring of trade union officers from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms (sections 44(10) of the IRA, 59(7) of the BIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA, 56(7) of the PIRA and 57(7) of the SIRA). The Government indicates in this regard that the government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has informed that no penalty is imposed against any worker for having carried out a peaceful strike, and cancellation of a trade union registration can only be initiated if workers are wilfully breaking the orders passed by the Labour Court. The governments of Punjab and Balochistan indicated that penalties are imposed only for illegal strikes involving threats, assault, physical injury, and the like. The Government adds that the federal law has a similar position. Taking note of the Government’s indications, the Committee is nevertheless bound to recall that as it has noted above, the legislation allows the restriction or even prohibition of virtually any strike by executive or judiciary authority regardless of its peaceful character; therefore, under the current law, a peaceful strike can be considered illegal, and penalties applied to workers and unions involved in them. The Committee recalls in this regard that it has always considered that: (i) no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and on no account should measures of imprisonment be imposed except in cases of violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights, and only pursuant to legislation punishing such acts; (ii) the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers and cancellation of trade union registration, implies a grave risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association; and (iii) sanctions for illegal strike action should be imposed only if the prohibitions or restrictions on the right to strike are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that federal and provincial legislation is amended in light of the principles above and requests the Government to inform it of developments in this regard.

Article 4. Dissolution of organizations. The Committee had previously noted that the registration of a trade union can be cancelled by the Registrar for numerous reasons set out in the federal and provincial legislation and had requested the Government to provide information on occurrences of cancelled registration all over the country since January 2016 and the procedures followed in these cases. The Government indicates that the actions of the Registrar are appealable and therefore the Registrar has no discretionary or arbitrary powers to dissolve unions. Regarding cases where the Registrar cancels the registration of a trade union when, after holding an inquiry, he or she finds that the union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist (section 11(6) IRA, 12(2) BIRA, 12(3)a KPIRA & PIRA, and 12(3) SIRA), the Government indicates that in instances where the unions remained dormant over a long period with an incomplete record, when they apply for renewal but are unable to account for the delay in mandatory renewals of their officers, they are guided to dissolve their unions as per the dissolution clause of their constitutions and asked to apply afresh. The Committee notes with satisfaction that BIRA 2022 has removed all instances of cancellation of registration by the Registrar, except for the cases in which he finds that the union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist (section 12(2)). The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on occurrences of cancelled registration in all provinces as well as the federal level since January 2016, and the procedures followed for such cases, including the results of all appeals that were taken.

Articles 5 and 6. Right of organizations to establish federations and confederations. In its previous comments the Committee had noted that section14(4) of the IRA provides that no trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having the same, similar, or identical name. Considering that a federation or confederation which has a similar name but not the same/identical name as an already existing federation or confederation should not be prevented from being formed and registered, the Committee had requested the revision of the legislation. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any indication regarding this matter. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request and expects the Government to provide information an all progress made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) received on 2 July 2020 and the Government reply thereto. In its previous comment, the Committee had urged the Government to investigate the 2015, 2017 and 2018 ITUC allegations of violence against workers and their arrest, detention, and prosecution for trade union activities, and to ensure that sanctions are imposed on law enforcement forces. The Government responds that even though most of the sectors concerned are out of the ambit of the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis & Human Resource Development (hereafter MOP&HRD) as well as Labour Departments of the Provinces, the matter has been referred to the concerned quarter and information will be provided as soon as received by the Ministry. The Committee notes with deep regret that seven years after the communication of the first allegations brought up by the ITUC, which concern very serious violations of the workers’ right to life and civil liberties, the Government has once again failed to report any investigation into the violent conduct of the law enforcement forces, the killing of two workers on 2 February 2016 and the alleged kidnapping of four union leaders and members on 3 February 2016 in connection with the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) labour dispute. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that investigations are conducted by the public authorities into the 2015, 2017 and 2018 ITUC allegations and that sanctions are imposed against law enforcement forces responsible for use of violence against workers.

The Committee notes the adoption of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act No. XIX of 2022 (hereafter, BIRA 2022) on 22 June 2022, which addresses several issues raised in its previous comments.

The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to it the legislative aspects of Case No. 2096 (Report No. 392, October 2020, paragraph 109). These matters are discussed below.

Articles 2–9 of the Convention. The scope of the Convention. Excluded categories of workers. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that sections 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2012, the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (BIRA) 2010, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act (KPIRA) 2010, the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA) 2010, and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act (SIRA) 2013 excluded many categories of workers from their scope. The Government reiterates in this regard that: (i) the exceptions provided in the federal and provincial acts are specific in nature and need to be imposed only in the cases where any action may lead to a serious security breach or an irreparable loss to the public at large; and (ii) unregistered unions/associations are formed under KPIRA 2010, and workers in private security firms can form unions. The Committee notes that only in Balochistan has there been a legislative change regarding the excluded categories of workers, where the exceptions retained are the following: (a) section 1(5) of BIRA 2022 allows the Government to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to form associations or unions in any public sector organization, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, for such time as it may deem proper; (b) section 1(6) provides that the act “shall not apply to Police, Levies or any of the Defense Services of Pakistan or any services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to armed forces of Pakistan and essential services”. The Committee notes with interest that many previously excluded categories in Balochistan are now brought within the scope of the industrial relations legislation. Nevertheless, it notes that the exceptions retained in the new law are still larger than the ones authorized under the Convention:

• (i)regarding section 1(5) of the BIRA 2022, the Committee recalls that the Convention contains no provisions allowing the invocation of a state of emergency to justify exemption from the obligations arising under it or any suspension of their application. Any such exemption cannot be used to justify restrictions on civil liberties that are essential to the proper exercise of trade union rights, except in circumstances of extreme gravity and on condition that any measures affecting the application of the Convention are limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary to deal with the situation in question. The Committee notes with concern that the language of section 1(5) referring to the “interest of sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan” evokes concepts broader than a state of emergency and does not clearly indicate any limitation in time, thereby giving a too broad discretion to the government to impose restrictions on the rights guaranteed in the Convention to public sector employees. Considering that BIRA 2022 was adopted after the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 24 June 2019 (C.P Nos. 669/2013 & 400/2015), in which the Court ruled that the right to form trade unions is not available to civil servants, the Committee firmly recalls that it has always considered that the right to establish and join organizations should be guaranteed for all public servants and officials, irrespective of whether they are engaged in the state administration at the central, regional or local level, are officials of bodies which provide important public services or are employed in state-owned economic undertakings;
• (ii)concerning the reference to “any services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to armed forces of Pakistan” in section 1(6), the Committee recalls that the exceptions under Article 9 of the Convention do not include civilian personnel in the armed forces, nor the civilian employees in the industrial establishments of the armed forces; and
• (iii)concerning the reference to “essential services” in section 1(6), the Committee is bound to repeat its previous comments concerning the distinction between the right to establish and join a union, of which only the armed forces and the police can be deprived, and the right to strike, which may be restricted in certain categories of public servants, essential services in the strict sense of the term, and situations of acute national or local crisis. While the exercise of the right to strike of the workers in essential services can be restricted or even prohibited, their exclusion from the right to establish and join unions is an infringement of the Convention.

Regarding trade union rights of the associations of public officials and employees of publicly owned undertakings, the Committee notes the observations of the ITF denouncing the derecognition of Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA), the sole representative organization for pilots in Pakistan, and unions representing other workers in PIA, as well as the termination of all working agreements through a notice of the employer communicated on 30 April 2020. This notice indicated that except for the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA), no other union, society or association will be recognized as representative of all or any category of employees. In reply, the Government indicates that: (i) PALPA is neither a registered union, nor the recognized CBA under the IRA 2012, it is an association of persons registered under the Societies Registration Act (SRA) 1860; (ii) any agreement with it is a civil contract only, which can be terminated by any party; (iii) the company does not intend to stop trade union and collective bargaining activities in the establishment. The Committee recalls in this regard that as it had noted in its 2016 observation concerning the application of the Convention in Pakistan, the Government had indicated that public officials and employees of publicly owned undertakings which are excluded from the purview of the industrial relations legislation, get coverage under article 17 of the Constitution as enforced by the SRA and had referred to PALPA as an example of such associations. In view of the Government reply to the ITF observations, the Committee is bound to note that the categories of workers excluded from the industrial relations legislation cannot exercise the rights enshrined in the Convention by forming associations under the SRA. In view of the above,while welcoming certain legislative changes in Balochistan, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial governments take the necessary measures to revise the IRA, the BIRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA so that all categories of workers can enjoy their rights under the Convention, the only admissible exception – which must be construed in a restrictive manner – being the police and the armed forces. It further urges the Government to ensure that the government of Balochistan takes all the necessary measures, including legislative, to guarantee that civil servants are able to form and join organizations of their own choosing freely and to engage in activities for the furtherance and defence of their members’ interest. Pending legislative reform, it also urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the associations of currently excluded categories of workers can represent the interests of their members in relation to the employer and the authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this respect.

Managerial employees. The Committee notes that sections 2 of IRA, BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA contain an excessively broad definition of the term “employer”, and a correspondingly restrictive definition of the term “worker” or “workman”. The definition of “employer” includes any person responsible for management, supervision, and control of the establishment. In a department of the federal government or the government or local authority, officers and employees who belong to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directorial, supervisory or agency staff shall be deemed to fall within the category of “employers”. Pursuant to IRA, PIRA and SIRA (but not KPIRA and BIRA 2022), in any other establishment, every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management is considered an employer. The term worker is defined in contrast as a person not falling within the definition of employer, who is employed – including as a supervisor or apprentice – in an establishment or industry for hire or reward.

The Committee further notes that the effect of these definitions on workers’ organizations and on trade union rights of managerial staff is crystallized in sections 31(2) of the IRA and 17(2) of its provincial variants, which provide that an employer may require that a person, upon appointment or promotion to a managerial position, shall cease to be and disqualified from being a member or official of a trade union of workmen. BIRA 2022 additionally provides that the employer may impose such a requirement, provided that no promotion is effected against the will of the worker or to prejudice his/her right to trade unionism. The Government indicates in this regard that: (i) BIRA 2022 provides that managerial and administrative staff and staff of occupational groups shall have the right to form an association/organization or to join the association/organization of their own choice; (ii) the managerial employees have all those rights of association that employers have under the laws, namely that they can establish and join associations of their choice without previous authorization and establish and join federations and confederations; and (iii) the employees in managerial capacity have the status of employer as they represent employers at all legal fora, hence they cannot be treated at par with the workers. The Committee notes that the legal provisions referred to above deprive large categories of administrative, agency and managerial staff from their trade union rights as employees, because employers’ associations by definition represent employers who are workers’ counterparts and cannot become collective bargaining agents, undertake collective bargaining, raise an industrial dispute, give a strike notice, and have access to conciliation and voluntary arbitration proceedings. They also have a negative impact on workers’ organizations by significantly reducing the number of their potential members. The Committee recalls that it has always considered that: (i) senior managerial staff may be denied the right to join the same organizations as other workers, provided that they have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests; and (ii) where managerial staff are denied the right to join the same organizations as other workers, the category of executive and managerial staff should not be so broadly defined as to weaken the organizations of other workers by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership. The Committee welcomes the change introduced by the adoption of section 3(e) of BIRA 2022, that enables managerial employees to establish their own organisations which are distinct from employers’ and workers’ organisations. However, it notes with concern that despite its longstanding requests, this right is not yet guaranteed for them in the federal act and provincial acts other than the BIRA. Regarding the broad terms of the definition of “employer”, the Committee notes that they remain unchanged in the industrial relations legislation. In view of the above,the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial acts are revised with a view to: (i) enabling senior managerial workers to establish and join organizations that can adequately defend their occupational interests; and (ii) guaranteeing that workers’ organizations are not deprived of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership as a result of the current legal definitions of “workmen” and “employers”. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

Export processing zones (EPZs). For many years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the workers in EPZs can benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee recalls that these workers were excluded from the scope of industrial relations legislation (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969) pursuant to clause 7 of S.R.O 1004(1)/82, dated 10 October 1982. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Government partially withdrew S.R.O 1004(1)/82, except clause 7, through a notification dated 5 August 2022. The Government indicates that with this notification, eight labour-related laws which were not applicable to EPZs became applicable; however, the only exemption remains the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Government adds that the EPZ (Employment and Service Condition) Rules 2009 have been finalized and workers are accordingly given rights guaranteed under the Convention, including the right to strike. Taking due note of the information submitted by the Government, the Committee also notes that no copy of the 2009 Rules is attached to the Government report. Therefore, it cannot examine the extent to which these rules guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to submit a copy of the final version of EPZ (Employment and Service Condition) Rules 2009. It also requests the Government to provide information on the exercise of trade union rights in the EPZs, including the trade unions registered and the number of unionized workers, as well as any instances in which trade unions have been refused registration and the reasons therefor.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously noted that pursuant to the IRA and its provincial variants, no worker shall be entitled to be a member of more than one trade union at any one time and had requested the Government to revise the relevant legal provisions. It notes that the Government reiterates its previous indications in this regard: i) as per section 48 of the Factories Act, adult workers shall not be employed to work in any factory on any day on which they have already been working in any other factory; ii) the restriction of membership in more than one trade union is very restrictive but vital for healthy trade unionism; in the same establishment it would result in overlapping membership of more than one rival trade union which generally have to contest referendums against each other for determination of CBA; iii) pursuant to a portion of Form-C of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Rules, 1974, while the same person cannot become a member of more than one union in the same establishment/group of establishments/industry to which the trade union relates, this is possible if the establishments are different.

The Committee recalls in this regard that it is not a requirement of the Convention that workers should have the right to join more than one union relating to the same establishment. However, as mentioned in its previous comments, it considers that workers who are engaged in more than one job – in different establishments – should be allowed, to join the corresponding union of their choice, that is more than one union; and in any event workers should be able, if they so wish, to join trade unions at the national and branch level as well as the enterprise level at the same time. Compliance with this principle will not entail overlapping memberships. The Committee notes with satisfaction, that section 3(a) of BIRA 2022 restricts membership in more than one trade union at any one time at the same workplace only, which brings this act in line with the above principle. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that IRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA are also amended with a view to bringing them into conformity with the above principles. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

Article 3. The right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. Rights of minority unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that certain rights, in particular to represent workers in any proceedings and to check-off facilities, were granted only to CBAs, that is to say the most representative trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the check-off system will help minority unions in keeping proper record of subscription of their members. Concerning the provision of other rights of CBA to minority unions, the Government states that it would take away the difference between CBA and other unions but adds nevertheless that section 24(1) of BIRA 2022 provides that a trade union shall be permitted to act as a CBA on behalf of its members. The Committee further notes that section 27(1) of BIRA provides that if a CBA so requests, the employer shall provide check-off facilities to it; section 36(1) of BIRA concerning individual grievances provides that workers may bring individual grievances to the notice of the employer through their trade union or CBA, but section 36(4) concerning proceedings before the Labour Court refers to the CBA only; and section 37(1) of the BIRA 2022 concerning negotiations relating to collective differences and disputes refers to CBA or trade union where no CBA exists, but section 37(3) concerning notice of strike refers to the CBA only. The Committee notes that it is not clear whether these BIRA provisions referring to CBA, mean the CBA on behalf of the union’s own members (section 24(1)), which can be any minority union, or the CBA for the establishment, that is to say the most representative trade union (section 24(2-11)). It requests the Government to clarify this matter. The Committee regrets that despite its repeated requests, the Government does not indicate any progress concerning the rights of minority unions. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that the distinction between most representative and minority unions should be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights (for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultation by the authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations); however, the distinction should not have the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being among the most representative, of the essential means of defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, making representations on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances), of organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes (including giving notice of and declaring a strike), as provided for in the Convention. In view of the above,the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that federal and provincial legislation is amended as soon as possible, with a view to guaranteeing full respect for the abovementioned principles. It requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

Right of workers’ and employers’ organisations to draw up their constitutions and freely elect their representatives. Banking sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, and had urged the Government to amend the legislation. The Committee recalls that this longstanding issue is also the object of Case No. 2096 before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which was first examined in October 2000. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government does not provide any information concerning developments in this regard. It is therefore bound to reiterate that provisions like section 27-B infringe the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to freely elect representatives by preventing qualified persons (such as full-time union officers or pensioners) from being elected and by creating a risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation by making it more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, along the lines of section 8(d) of the IRA. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Right of organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programs. The Registrar’s powers of investigation, inspection, and inquiry into the affairs of a trade union. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the legislation conferred extensive powers of inspection, inquiry, and investigation “as he/she deems fit” to the Registrar regarding the internal affairs of unions and requested the Government to make legislative amendments to limit these powers. The Government indicates in this regard that: i) the Registrar inspects the accounts and records of unions to avoid malpractice and ensure transparency. The purpose of inquiry into the unions’ affairs is limited to unveiling certain crucial facts and figures; ii) in the province of Sindh, in certain cases huge funds of the union were spent lavishly either by the outgoing or incoming executive but were not accounted for. The Registrar’s power to check the accounts does not mean interference in the affairs of the union but is to ensure that expenditure was made properly; and iii) the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa commits that the financial powers of the Registrar under the KPIRA might be minimized. While noting that the Government once again indicates that the purpose of the Registrars’ inquiry is limited and their power does not mean interference, the Committee recalls that it considers that the wording of the relevant legislative provisions empowering the Registrar to proceed to inquiry “as he/she deems fit” is excessively broad and not compatible with the principle enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that the Government does not indicate any progress and furthermore section 15(e) of BIRA 2022 contains no change in this regard. It therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial legislation is amended with a view to explicitly limiting the powers of financial supervision of the Registrar to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports and to verification in cases of serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law or in cases of a complaint or call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement from a significant number of workers (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 109).

Right of organizations to freely elect their representatives. Disqualification criteria. In its previous comments the Committee had noted that the IRA and its provincial variants establish excessively broad disqualification criteria for being elected or holding union office and had requested the Government to amend the legislation. The Committee recalls that the following grounds for disqualifications are provided in the legislation: i) conviction and prison sentence for two years or more, or in an offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), unless a period of five years has elapsed after the completion of the sentence (IRA section 18); ii) conviction for heinous offence under the PPC (section 7 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA); iii) violation of the National Industrial Relations Commission or Labour Court order to stop a strike (section 44(10) of the IRA, 59(7) BIRA, 60(7) KPIRA, 56(7) PIRA, and 57(7) SIRA; iv) conviction for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds (7 cum 69 PIRA and 7 cum 70 of the SIRA); and v) conviction for contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of KPIRA (7 cum 74 KPIRA). The Committee notes the following information provided by the Government in this regard: i) the grounds for disqualification in IRA are reasonable to protect the interest of discipline and good governance at enterprise level. The offences of theft, embezzlement and moral turpitude seriously damage the relationship of trust and mutual respect between employers and workers as well as such person’s ability to represent workers; ii) the grounds for disqualification under PIRA just cover the crucial minimum requirements as they only extend to a certain specified period; iii) the Governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh will discuss the matter in the Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committee; and iv) the Government of Balochistan has proposed to omit disqualification for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The Committee welcomes that in BIRA 2022, disqualification for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds is indeed removed; however disqualification for heinous offence and violation of a court order to stop a strike are maintained. Noting with concern that the Government does not report any progress concerning this and other disqualification criteria noted herein, the Committee once again emphasizes that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria such as by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee considers that not every contravention of industrial relations legislation, nor every violation of a judicial order to stop a strike, nor every conviction for the range of offences alluded to necessarily constitute acts of such a nature as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial legislation is amended so as to make the grounds for disqualification more restrictive and to provide information on developments in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously noted that, by virtue of section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2012, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa IRA 2010 (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA 2010 (PIRA), the Sindh IRA 2013 (SIRA), and section 1(4) of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), read in conjunction with sections 2(ix) of the IRA, 2(vii) of the KPIRA, 2(viii) of the PIRA and the SIRA, and 2(h) of the BIRA, the acts appear to apply only to workers under a contract of employment and to exclude self-employed workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that modalities are being discussed to provide the right to unionize to self-employed persons and that although no section in KPIRA deals with trade unions of self-employed persons, a number of unions/associations have been registered for self-employed persons in the markets, shopkeepers, transport owners, drivers and goods transport. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that self-employed workers can benefit from the rights provided for in the Convention in law and in practice as soon as possible and to inform it on the measures taken in this regard.

In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that the governments of Balochistan and Sindh had amended the BIRA and the SIRA so as to include persons employed in agriculture and fishing in the scope of the industrial relations legislation and had trusted that the Government would ensure that measures were taken in other provinces and at the federal level so that workers in all sectors including agriculture and fisheries enjoyed rights afforded by the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) in Sindh, three unions of agriculture workers and two associations of landlords of agriculture farms have been registered; (ii) the PIRA still does not cover sectors like agriculture and fishing; and (iii) although KPIRA does not explicitly include agriculture and fisheries sectors within its scope, there is no bar on registration of such workers’ unions. In practice, associations in dairy farms, fisheries and bee-keeping businesses have already been registered. Taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the federal Government, as well as the governments of the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, amend the industrial relations legislation so that workers engaged in all sectors, including agriculture and fishing, enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in law and in practice.

The Committee had previously noted that the BIRA excludes tribal areas from its application (section 1(2)). It notes the Government’s indication that the Government of Balochistan is working on the inclusion of the BIRA in the schedule of the Provincial Laws (Application to the Tribal Areas of Balochistan) Regulation, 1974, and that once this amendment is approved the workers employed in Provincially Administered Tribal Areas will enjoy freedom of association and other fundamental labour rights as enjoyed by other workers. Taking due note of this information, the Committee trusts that the Government of Balochistan will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers and employers within tribal areas will soon benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention and requests the Government to inform it of the developments in this regard.

The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 6 of the IRA, any trade union may apply for registration, “provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment” and that while section 4 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA simply provide that any trade union may under the signatures of its President and Secretary apply to the Registrar for registration, the additional wording in section 6 of the IRA appeared to prohibit unions to register in establishments where there is no union or only one union. Noting the Government’s indication that the Federal Tripartite Consultative Committee (FTCC) is the appropriate forum for consultation and taking measures to amend section 6 of the IRA, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision through the FTCC or any other forum it deems appropriate so as to ensure that unions may register in establishments where there is no union and to inform it of the developments in this regard.

The Committee had previously noted that, pursuant to sections 8(2)(b) of the IRA and 6(2)(b) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, no other trade union is entitled to registration if there are already two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which that trade union is connected, unless it has, as members, not less than 20 per cent of the workers employed in that establishment, group of establishments or industry. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that these provisions seek to avoid the mushroom growth of ineffective trade unions, maintain the effectiveness of collective bargaining agreements and discourage the formation of pocket unions through employer support having no actual base, and adds that their removal will entail the uncontrolled growth of ineffective and non-manageable unions which will result in weakening healthy trade unionism in the long run. The Government further indicates that the government of Balochistan has consulted on the matter with the social partners in the meeting of PTCC regarding BIRA Bill, 2017 and they were unanimous on the need to maintain the requirement of one fifth of the total number of workers; however, the observation of the Committee will again be discussed with the social partners in the upcoming PTCC meeting. The Committee recalls that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid a proliferation of competing organizations, the right of workers to be able to establish organizations of their own choosing, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention, implies that trade union diversity must remain possible in all cases. The Committee considers that it is important for workers to be able to change trade unions or to establish a new union for reasons of independence, effectiveness or ideological choice. Consequently, trade union unity imposed directly or indirectly by law is contrary to the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that workers may establish organizations of their own choosing and that no distinction as to the minimum membership requirement is made between the first two or more registered trade unions and the newly created unions. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted that section 8 of the IRA and section 6 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and the SIRA regulate in detail the internal functioning of trade unions. Specifically, their subsection 1(j), respectively, provides that the constitution of a union should provide for a term for which a trade union officer may be elected and specifies that it should not exceed two years; and subsection 1(l), respectively, provides for the frequency of meetings of a union’s executive and general body. It had also noted that the Commission (under section 48(2) of the IRA) or the Labour Court (under sections 67(2) of the BIRA, 63(2) of the KPIRA, 59(3) of the PIRA and 60(3) of SIRA) have the power to order a person who has been expelled from a trade union to be restored to its membership or to order that he or she be paid out of the union funds such sum by way of compensation or damages as the Commission or Labour Court thinks just. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a reasonable limit to the term of office-bearers should be considered as a minimum requirement, as otherwise room is provided for dictatorship and that the limits with respect to frequency of the meetings of union bodies are necessary to ensure that the trade union remains active and operational. The Government further adds that the governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan consider that the above-cited legal provisions promote democracy and ensure better performance of union executives.

Recalling that national legislation should only lay down formal requirements respecting trade union constitutions, except with regard to the need to follow a democratic process and to ensure a right of appeal for the members, the Committee reiterates that, pursuant to the rights of workers’ organizations under the Convention to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes, certain matters should be left to the unions themselves, such as to set the period of terms of office and to expel or sanction union members according to their constitution and by-laws. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation in this respect and to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that, under sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA and 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, a go-slow appears to be an unfair labour practice. It notes the Government’s indication that a go-slow as defined in the PIRA entails a drastic reduction in the economic activity especially hampering the export-oriented businesses serving as a backbone to the economy. It would therefore be contrary to the national interest to allow this form of industrial action. The governments of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa consider that allowing go-slow as a legal form of industrial action can adversely affect productivity in the concerned establishment and the overall economic activity in the province, therefore the amendments requested by the Committee are not recommended to be adopted; go-slow is a peaceful illegal practice which may not be legalized. The government of Balochistan has proposed omission of the word “go-slow” in the section 18(1)(e) in the new BIRA bill. The matter may be referred to the PTCC for further review. The Committee recalls that restrictions as to the forms of strike action (including go-slow) can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful. While welcoming the proposal of the Government of Balochistan to amend the BIRA with a view to allowing go-slow as a form of legal industrial action, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the federal legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful work slowdown is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend their legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) sections 42(3) of the IRA, 48(3) of the BIRA, 44(3) of the KPIRA, 40(3) of the PIRA and 41(3) and (4) of the SIRA, provide that, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the Government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that a strike can also be prohibited at any time before the expiry of 30 days if “it is satisfied that the continuance of such a strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”; (ii) the Government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute “of national importance” (sections 45 of the IRA and 49 of the BIRA) or in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement (sections 45 of the IRA and KPIRA, 49 of the BIRA, 41 of the PIRA and 42 of the SIRA); (iii) a strike carried out in contravention of the above sections, is deemed illegal by virtue of sections 43(1)(c) of the IRA, 63(1)(c) of the BIRA, 59(1)(c) of the KPIRA, 55(1)(c) of the PIRA and 56(1)(c) of the SIRA; and (iv) according to the schedules of the IRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA the lists of public utility services include services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that under section 49(5) of the PIRA, the government is legally bound to refer the dispute to the Labour Court immediately after prohibiting the strike. In this way, a strike which fails to resolve the dispute after thirty days is discontinued and an amicable settlement or award through judicial process is facilitated by the Government in the interest of all stakeholders. The government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa acknowledges that not any strike which exceeds 30 days is against the public interest and legal action is only taken when public utility services such as provision of gas, electricity, sanitation and the like to the public are largely affected. In the latter cases the amendment of legislation is not generally recommended. The governments of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will discuss the matter with the social partners within the PTCC. As for the government of Balochistan, it has proposed a provision in the following wording under section 51 of the new BIRA draft: “The Government shall not prohibit strike or lock-out except in exceptional situations, essential services, those involved in the administration of the state and police and armed forces, or in situation of national emergency”. The Committee again recalls that the prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (1) in the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in the event of an acute national or local crisis; or (3) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee considers that not every strike lasting longer than 30 day fulfils these conditions and that services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways do not normally constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, although they are important public services in which a minimum service could be required in case of a strike. Welcoming the legislative amendment proposal made by the Government of Balochistan, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the federal legislation so as to ensure that any prohibition or restriction imposed on the right to strike is in full conformity with the Convention and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the other provinces take measures, in consultation with the social partners, to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) following the prohibition of a strike by the Government pursuant to the above-noted sections, the dispute is referred to the NIRC or the Labour Court for adjudication; (ii) a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, may apply to the Commission or Labour Court, as applicable, for adjudication of the dispute (sections 42(2) of the IRA, 48(2) of the BIRA, 44(2) of the KPIRA, 40(2) of the PIRA and 41(2) of the SIRA); and (iii) pending adjudication, the Commission/Labour Court can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (sections 61 of the IRA, 62 of the BIRA, 58 of the KPIRA, 54 of the PIRA and 55 of the SIRA). It notes that the Government reiterates that the issue will be placed on the agenda of upcoming tripartite consultation committees at the federal and provincial levels, and that if both employers’ and workers’ organizations agree to a legislative amendment along the lines of the Committee’s comments, the law would be amended accordingly. Regretting the lack of progress, the Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only in cases where the strike can be restricted or even prohibited or at the request of both parties to the dispute and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) commencing, continuing, instigating others to take part in, or expending or supplying money to, or otherwise acting in furtherance or support of an illegal strike or a go-slow is an unfair labour practice (sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA, 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA, and SIRA) punishable by a fine of up to 20,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR) (sections 72(3) of the BIRA, 68(3) of the KPIRA, 64(3) of the PIRA and 65(3) of the SIRA), and/or imprisonment which may extend to 30 days (section 67(3) of the IRA); (ii) contravening an order to call off a strike is sanctioned as follows: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; and debarring of trade union officers from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms (sections 44(10) of the IRA, 64(7) of the BIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA, 56(7) of the PIRA and 57(7) of the SIRA). It also notes the Government’s indication that: peaceful strikes have never been discouraged and these sanctions are just to hinder serious infringements. The governments of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa clarified that the penalties are to serve as a deterrent against a contempt of court order; in general law punishments for contempt of court are much harder. The government of Sindh will place the issue before the PTCC for final decision. While noting that the Government states that such sanctions do not aim at discouraging peaceful strikes, the Committee observes that the legislative provisions imposing the sanctions refer, more broadly, to illegal strikes, which may include peaceful strikes that do not comply with formalities such as notice requirements. The Committee recalls that: (i) no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and on no account should measures of imprisonment be imposed except in cases of violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights and only pursuant to legislation punishing such acts; (ii) the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers and cancellation of trade union registration, implies a grave risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association; and (iii) sanctions for illegal strike action should be imposed only if the prohibitions or restrictions on the right to strike are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation accordingly and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise take measures to amend their legislation.

Articles 5 and 6. Right of organizations to establish federations and confederations. The Committee had previously noted that, under section 14(4) of the IRA, no trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having the same, similar, or identical name, and the Committee had considered that a federation or confederation which has a similar name but not the same/identical name as an already existing federation or confederation should not be prevented from being formed and registered. It had therefore requested the Government to take all measures to amend the legislation by deleting the term “similar”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the FTCC is the appropriate forum to appreciate the implications of the recommendation of the Committee on industrial relations and peace in the context of Pakistani social fabric. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation after consultation with social partners in the FTCC so as to ensure that a federation or confederation which has a similar but not the same name as an already existing federation or confederation is not prevented from being formed or registered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the observations of the Pakistan Workers Federation (PWF) received on 19 October 2017 referring mainly to legislative issues under examination by the Committee; as well as the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2018 alleging a ban on a strike in the health sector, a refusal to grant demonstration permission to nurses and new incidents of police violence against protesting and striking workers in health, education, transports and tourism sectors and their arrest, detention and criminal prosecution. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. It also notes the ITUC observations received on 1 September 2017 and the Government’s reply thereto.

In its previous comments the Committee had noted acts of violence against protesting and striking workers and their arrest alleged by the ITUC in 2015. The Committee notes with concern that the Government has not replied to these allegations and that, in its latest observations, the ITUC alleges new incidents of police violence, arrest, detention and prosecution of workers under terrorism charges for trade union activities. Noting the Government’s reply to the ITUC 2017 observations, the Committee deplores in particular the killing by law enforcement forces of two Pakistan International Airline (PIA) workers and injuring of several others during a protest against privatization plans concerning the company on 2 February 2016. It notes the Government’s indication that monetary compensation was paid to the families of the victims and to the injured workers. However, the Committee notes with regret that no information is provided with regard to any investigation into the violent conduct of the law enforcement forces or with regard to the alleged kidnapping of four union leaders and members in the early hours of 3 February 2016 in connection with the PIA labour dispute. Recalling that the ILO supervisory bodies have unceasingly stressed the interdependence between civil liberties and trade union rights, and emphasizing that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on all allegations of acts of violence against workers and their alleged arrest, detention and charging for trade union activities, and to ensure that investigations are conducted by the public authorities into the relevant 2015, 2017 and 2018 ITUC allegations and that sanctions are imposed against law enforcement forces.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee previously noted that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) 2012, excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application: workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government (section 1(3)(a)); workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)); members of the security staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), or drawing wages in a pay group not lower than Group V in the PIAC establishment (section 1(3)(c)); workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d)); workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons, excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e)); and workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with section 2(x) and (xvii)).

The Committee had further noted that section 1 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (BIRA) 2010, the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa Industrial Relations Act (KPIRA) 2010, and the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA) 2010, further excludes: (i) workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government; (ii) members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or an airport (and seaport – the BIRA and KPIRA); (iii) members of the security or fire service staff of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas; (iv) persons employed in the administration of the State except those employed as workmen by the railway and Pakistan Post; and (v) in the PIRA and KPIRA, persons employed in an establishment or institution providing education or emergency services excluding those run on a commercial basis. The Committee also noted that section 1 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act (SIRA) 2013, excludes all abovementioned five categories of workers, except for the members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of a seaport and that the BIRA as amended in 2015 retained the exclusions enumerated above. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that federal and provincial legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing with the only exception of the armed forces and the police that must be construed in a restrictive manner. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the restrictions set out in provincial acts are specific in nature and need to be imposed in the cases provided, any kind of industrial action may lead to serious security breach or irreparable loss to the public at large. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indication that the proposed BIRA Bill 2017 retains the same exceptions. Furthermore, the Government indicates that persons employed in the administration of the State and performing their duties connected with the affairs of the armed forces or the police may not be given the right to agitate or go on strike. The Government indicates, however, that workers in private security firms are allowed to form unions and different categories of employees have formed unregistered unions/associations under KPIRA 2010 and are successfully defending their social, economic and occupational interests.

Noting that the Government expresses concern with regard to the consequences of industrial action in these services, the Committee wishes to point out the distinction between the right to establish and join a union, of which only the armed forces and the police can be deprived, and the right to strike, which may be restricted to certain categories of public servants, essential services in the strict sense of term, and situations of acute national or local crisis. The Committee further recalls that the exceptions to the right to establish and join a union that relate to the armed forces and the police do not automatically apply to all employees who may carry a weapon in the course of their duties or to civilian personnel in the armed forces, fire service personnel, workers in private security firms and members of the security services of civil aviation companies, workers engaged in security printing services and members of the security or fire services of oil refineries, airports and seaports. The Committee emphasizes that these workers, without distinction whatsoever, should be granted the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee once again recalls that the right to strike is not absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, or even prohibited, for example in essential services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole of part of the population. In view of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that the federal as well as all provincial governments take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to further and defend their social, economic and occupational interests, and to provide detailed information on any progress made in this respect. As regards public service, the Committee again requests the Government to provide legislative and other information detailing how the associations of public officials and employees of publicly owned undertakings benefit from the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention.

Managerial employees. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to sections 31(2) of the IRA and 17(2) of the BIRA, KPIRA, SIRA and PIRA, an employer may require that a person, upon his or her appointment or promotion to a managerial position, shall cease to be and shall be disqualified from being a member or an officer of a trade union. In this respect, the Committee notes with concern the observation of the PWF alleging that as a result of these provisions, a workman on promotion has to leave the trade union and become deprived of the benefit of collective bargaining and collective agreement and so is unable to pursue efforts to improve standard of living and so most of the workers are compelled to live around the poverty line. The Committee recalls in this respect that it has always considered that senior managerial staff may be denied the right to join the same organizations as other workers, provided that they have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests. It notes the Government’s indication that managerial workers, who are assimilated to employers under the law, have the inalienable right to form and join the associations of their choice but subject to reasonable limitations. The Committee notes however that, while under the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, workmen’s trade unions can get recognition as collective bargaining agents, undertake collective bargaining, raise an industrial dispute, give a strike notice and have access to conciliation and voluntary arbitration proceedings, the same does not seem to apply to managerial workers’ associations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that the federal and provincial acts are revised with a view to ensuring that senior managerial workers can establish and join organizations that can appropriately defend their occupational interests.

The Committee further notes that section 2 of the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA define as an employer any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment, and that the same provisions define “worker” and “workman” as a person, employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward, including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice, but not falling within the definition of employer. The definition of worker also expressly excludes any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Government of Sindh intends to bring the issue of managerial workers before the Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committees (PTCC) for further clarification. The Committee recalls in this respect that it has always considered that where managerial staff are denied the right to join the same organizations as the other workers, the category of executive and managerial staff should not be so broadly defined as to weaken the organizations of other workers by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership. Noting that according to section 2 of the abovementioned federal and provincial Industrial Relations Acts, persons employed mainly in an administrative capacity and all those responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment are not considered workmen, and that in departments of Federal Government, for the purpose of distinction from the category of “workers” or “workmen”, officers and employees who belong to secretarial, supervisory or agency staff shall be deemed to fall within the category of employers, the Committee considers that the categories of staff disqualified from participation in workmen’s trade unions may be too broadly defined. The Committee therefore requests the Government to review the application of the legislation with the social partners, with a view to ensuring, including through legislative means, that workers’ organizations are not deprived of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership due to the current legal definitions of “workmen” and “employers”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

Rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously referred to the need to amend sections 3(a) of the IRA, the SIRA and the BIRA, 3(i) of the KPIRA and 3(ii) of the PIRA according to which, no worker shall be entitled to be a member of more than one trade union, so as to ensure that workers in the public and private sectors who are engaged in more than one job are allowed to join the corresponding unions as full members, or at least, if they so wish, to join at the same time trade unions at the enterprise, branch and national levels. The Committee notes that the Government once again refers to the restriction on “double employment” of a worker under section 48 of the Factories Act, which means that a worker cannot be allowed to become a member of more than one trade union, and further adds that the proposed BIRA Bill 2017, also prohibits “double employment” and establishes that in order to become a trade union member, the worker should be employed at the establishment. The Government considers that membership in more than one trade union is not justified as in the same establishment it would result in overlapping memberships in more than one rival trade union. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with the KPIRA, members and office-bearers of unions can also become office-bearers in federations and confederations, and that pursuant to portion of Form-C of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Rules, 1974, while the same person cannot become a member of more than one union in the same establishment/group of establishments/industry to which the trade union relates, this is possible if the establishments are different.

The Committee observed in its previous comment that, while, as indicated by the Government, under section 48 of the Factories Act, adult workers shall not be allowed to work in any factory on any day on which they have already been working in any other factory, this does not seem to preclude that workers in the private and public sector or sectors may be engaged in more than one job in the same or different occupation. In addition, the Committee once again recalls that workers who are engaged in more than one job should be allowed to join the corresponding union of their choice, that is, more than one union, and that in any event workers should be able, if they so wish, to join trade unions at the national and branch level as well as the enterprise level at the same time, and draws the Government’s attention to the fact that compliance with this principle will not entail overlapping memberships. The Committee notes that pursuant to the Government’s indication, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the law and practice allow the workers such choice. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that federal and provincial legislation is amended so as to guarantee that workers who are engaged in more than one job are allowed to join the corresponding union of their choice, that is, more than one union, and that in any event, workers can, if they so wish, join trade unions at the national and branch level as well as the enterprise level at the same time and to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

Rights and advantages of the most representative trade unions. The Committee previously noted that certain rights were granted (in particular, to represent workers in any proceedings and to check-off facilities) only to collective bargaining agents, that is to say, the most representative trade unions (sections 20(b) and (c), 22, 33, 35 and 65(1) of the IRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 32, 41, 42 and 68(1) of the BIRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 28, 37, 38 and 64(1) of the KPIRA; sections 24(20)(b) and (c), 27, 33, 34 and 60(1) of the PIRA and sections 24(20)(b) and (c), 27, 34, 35 and 61(1) of the SIRA. It notes with interest the Government’s indication that it will try to devise a mechanism in consultation with the stakeholders to solve the issues related to the provision of check-off and representation of workers in case of individual grievances. The Committee also notes that the Government considers that recognizing the right to declare strike and bargain collectively for unions other than the CBA may lead to multiplicity of fora and different charters of demands, resulting in different rights for different workers of the same establishment. It finally indicates that the Governments of Sindh and Blochistan will discuss the observations of the Committee in the PTCC for final decision. The Committee reiterates that the distinction between most representative and minority unions should be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights (for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultation by the authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations); however, the distinction should not have the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means of defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, making representations on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances), of organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes (including giving notice of and declaring a strike), as provided for in the Convention. Welcoming the Government’s declared intention to address the lack of right of representation and check-off facilities for minority unions, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation as soon as possible, so as to ensure full respect for the abovementioned principles, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation, and to inform it of the developments in this regard.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in a tripartite meeting held in August 2018 at the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development, it was agreed that the Ministry will submit a proposal for amendment of section 27-B to the Government. The Committee however notes with concern that pursuant to the Government’s report, in the above-cited tripartite meeting it was decided to enable dismissed workers to work in unions for so long as their cases are not finalized in the court. The Committee considers, however, that if the Ministry’s amendment proposal does not go further than the decision adopted in the tripartite meeting, it will fall short of bringing the law into conformity with the Convention. In the view of the Committee, provisions like section 27-B infringe the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons (such as full-time union officers or pensioners) from being elected and by creating a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation by making it more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, along the lines of section 8(d) of the IRA.

Article 3. Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA and the provincial industrial relations acts contain several sections concerning disqualification from being elected to or holding a trade union office on the following grounds: conviction or prison sentence for two years or more for offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code, unless a period of five years has elapsed after the completion of the sentence (section 18 of IRA); conviction for contraventions to the Act (section 7 of the KPIRA); conviction for heinous offence under the Pakistan Penal Code (section 7 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA); violation of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) or Labour Court order to stop a strike (section 44(10) of the IRA, section 64(7) of the BIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA, 56(7) of the PIRA and 57(7) of the SIRA) and conviction for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds (sections 7 and 77 of the BIRA, 7 and 69 of the PIRA and 7 and 70 of the SIRA). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the grounds for disqualification on conviction to prison sentence as stipulated in the IRA are reasonable to protect discipline and good governance at the enterprise level and the offences of theft, embezzlement and moral turpitude seriously damage the relationship of trust and mutual respect between employers and workers and the ability to represent workers; (ii) section 56 of the PIRA highlights the powers of the appellate court to deal with cases of illegal strikes and to pass certain orders against the violators. These powers allow the creation of checks and balances for the promotion of healthy trade unionism; (iii) the grounds for disqualification under the PIRA only cover the crucial minimum requirements for a certain specified period. The Government further reiterates that the Government of Sindh plans to place the matter before its Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committee (PTCC) and indicates that the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will do likewise. It further indicates that the Government of Balochistan has proposed to omit reference to section 77 in section 7 of the BIRA and the procedure in case of illegal strikes or lockout will be finalized after consultation with social partners. The Committee once again emphasizes that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria such as by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee considers that not every contravention of industrial relations legislation, nor every violation of a judicial order to stop a strike, nor every conviction for the range of criminal offences alluded to necessarily constitute acts of such a nature as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties. In light of the above, the Committee welcomes the initiatives of the Governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh to refer the Committee’s comments to the PTCC and expects that these consultations will produce concrete results in the near future. It notes however that neither the Federal Government nor the Government of Punjab seem to envisage any legislative amendment in relation to this matter and that the amendments proposed by the Government of Balochistan do not adequately limit the grounds for disqualification from being elected to or holding union office. The Committee therefore urges the Government to amend the federal legislation so as to make the grounds for disqualification more restrictive and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend their legislation.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted that sections 5(d) of the IRA, 15(e) of the BIRA and SIRA, and 15(d) of the KPIRA and PIRA confer on the registrar the power to inspect the accounts and records of a registered trade union, or investigate or hold such inquiry into the affairs of a trade union as he or she deems fit. It also notes that the Government reiterates that these legal provisions aim at making the system more accountable and transparent. With regard to provinces, the Government indicates that the purpose of inspection powers of the registrar under the PIRA is limited to unveiling of certain crucial facts and figures and that under the SIRA, the power to check the accounts aims at ensuring that expenditures have been made properly and, finally, that the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa commits that the financial powers of the registrar under the KPIRA may be minimized to solving the issues of misappropriation and embezzlement. While noting the federal and provincial governments’ views concerning the limited purposes of the registrar’s powers, the Committee considers that the wording of the relevant legislative provisions “as he deems fit” is excessively broad. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation by explicitly limiting the powers of financial supervision of the registrar to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports and to verification in cases of serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law or in cases of a complaint or call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement from a significant number of workers (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 109). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take such measures as well.

Article 4. Dissolution of organizations. The Committee had previously noted that the registration of a trade union can be cancelled by the registrar for numerous reasons set out in sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e) and (f), 11(5), and 16(5) of the IRA; and section 12(1)(a) and (b), 12(3)(d), and 12(2) and (7) of the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA, and that, under the IRA, the Commission’s decision directing the registrar to cancel the registration of a union cannot be appealed in court (section 59). The Committee had also noted that section 12 of the SIRA provides for grounds for cancellation by the registrar, if so directed by the labour court, and had recalled that the dissolution and suspension of trade union organizations constitute extreme forms of interference by the authorities in the activities of organizations and should, therefore, be accompanied by all the necessary guarantees, which can only be ensured through a normal judicial procedure, which should also have the effect of a stay of execution. The Committee had further noted the Government’s indications that: (i) registration of a trade union is cancelled at federal level only on the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) (judicial body the decision of which can be appealed before its full bench (sections 54, 57 and 58 of the IRA)) or at provincial level by the labour courts; and (ii) the Registrar of Trade Unions, on its own, has no jurisdiction to cancel the trade union registration (sections 11(2) of the IRA; 12(2) of the BIRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA). The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on all occurrences of cancelled registration since January 2016 and the procedures followed for such occurrences. It notes in this regard the Government’s indication that, in Punjab, 66 registrations were cancelled in 2016, and five appeals were made before the labour court against these cancellations, while in 2017, registrations of 73 unions were cancelled and nine appeals were made. The Government further indicates that in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa eight registrations were cancelled pursuant to section 12(3)(a) of the KPIRA that provides for the cancellation of registration of a union that has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist. Taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on occurrences of cancelled registration in all provinces as well as at the federal level since January 2016, and the procedures followed for such cases, including the results of all appeals that were taken.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report on the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), that the proposed rules were shared with the investors of the EPZ Authority (EPZA) as any change in the incentive package under which an investment/scheme has been sanctioned in a zone shall not be made except where such change is more advantageous to the investors and is also accepted by them. The Government adds that any change in the EPZA law would involve formal endorsement of the Board of the EPZA followed by the approval of the Parliament and the matter is still being discussed at a higher level in order to carve out a strategy to amend the law. Recalling that for the past 13 years, the Government has been indicating that it is in the process of drawing up rules that would grant the right to organize to EPZ workers, the Committee deeply regrets the lack of progress in this regard. Recalling that workers in the EPZs should benefit from the rights guaranteed under the Convention, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the new Rules are adopted without further delay so as to guarantee the right to organize in EPZs. It requests the Government to provide a copy thereof once adopted.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the adoption of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA), and the amendment of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA) in 2015.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously noted that, by virtue of section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA, 2010 (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA, 2010 (PIRA), and section 1(4) of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), read in conjunction with section 2(ix) of the IRA, 2(h) of the BIRA, 2(vii) of the KPIRA, and 2(viii) of the PIRA, the Acts appear to apply only to workers under a contract of employment. Sections 1(3) and 2(viii) of the recently adopted SIRA contain similar provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the industrial relations legislation covers the employer–employee relationship and does not deal with self-employment; (ii) self-employed are covered under article 17 of the Constitution which grants every citizen the right to form and join associations; and (iii) the laws enforcing this constitutional provision are the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which govern the terms of engagement of organizations and associations in the country which are registered with provincial social welfare departments. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of registered associations of self-employed, as well as legislative and other information specifying how these associations benefit from the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention.

Recalling that in the past, issues had been raised concerning the applicability of the federal and provincial industrial relations legislation to agricultural workers, the Committee notes with interest that: (i) section 1(3) of the SIRA and section 1(4) of the BIRA, as amended, explicitly provide that the Act shall apply to all persons employed in any establishment or industry, including fishing and agriculture; and (ii) the Government indicates that Sindh has become the first Province to recognize women and men in the agriculture and fisheries sector as workers under law and has registered the first ever trade union for this sector, the Sindh Agriculture and Fishing Workers Union (SAFWU), which currently has 400 members of whom 180 are women. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that it, as well as all the governments of the other provinces, will take the necessary measures to ensure that workers engaged in all sectors, including agriculture and fishing, enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention in law and in practice.

The Committee had previously noted that the BIRA excludes tribal areas from its application (section 1(2)). While noting the Government’s indication that, according to the Government of Balochistan, in the new draft BIRA 2015, an amendment has been proposed to section 1(2) which allows workers employed in Provincially Administered Tribal Areas to enjoy freedom of association rights as enjoyed by other workers, the Committee notes that the BIRA, as amended, still excludes tribal areas from its scope of application. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the Government of Balochistan takes measures to ensure that workers and employers within tribal areas will soon benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention.

The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 6 of the IRA, any trade union may apply for registration provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment. Noting the Government’s indication that section 6 seeks to counter the emergence of pocket unions supported by the employer (yellow unions), the Committee observes that, while sections 4 of the BIRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA simply provide that any trade union may under the signatures of its president and secretary apply to the Registrar for registration, the additional wording in section 6 of the IRA “provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment” appears to prohibit unions from registering in establishments where there is no union or only one union. The Committee requests again the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 6 of the IRA so as to ensure that unions may register in establishments where there is no union or only one union.

Article 3. Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA contains several sections concerning disqualification from being elected to, or holding, a trade union office: (i) conviction or prison sentence for two years or more for offences involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code, unless a period of five years has elapsed after the completion of the sentence (section 18 of the IRA); conviction for the contraventions of the Act (section 7 of the KPIRA); conviction for heinous offences under the Pakistan Penal Code (section 7 of the BIRA, the KPIRA, and the PIRA); violation of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) or Labour Court order to stop a strike (section 44(10) of the IRA, section 64(7) of the BIRA, section 60(7) of the KPIRA, and section 56(7) of the PIRA). The Committee notes that, under sections 7 and 57(7) of the SIRA, a person is disqualified from union office for having received a penalty for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, as well as the reasons stated in the BIRA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) conviction and imprisonment does not stop a person from being elected as an officer of a trade union, however, a period of five years must pass after completion of the sentence; (ii) a person found guilty of moral turpitude or who is convicted of a criminal offence of heinous nature under the Pakistan Penal Code such as theft, assault, murder or attempt to murder, etc., cannot be allowed to hold position of trust in which he or she has to represent the workers before the employer and the Government; (iii) as for disqualification due to violation of the NIRC or Labour Court order to stop a strike, such judicial decision is taken by the NIRC only after holding inquiries and giving both parties the right to hearing, and the NIRC may review its orders within seven days if good and sufficient cause is shown by the affected worker; (iv) according to the Balochistan Government, the Committee’s comments will be tabled before the Provincial Tripartite Consultative Committee in its next meeting; (v) the Government of Sindh also plans to place these comments before its Tripartite Consultative Committee; (vi) according to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, sections 7 and 60(7) of the KPIRA provide for disqualification only after a judicial decision of a competent court providing an opportunity of full hearing to the parties and thus need no amendment; and (vii) the Government of Punjab is of the view that section 7 of the PIRA vests power in the union executives to deal with disqualification of a union officer from holding office, and section 56 empowers the appellate court to take such action, so as to create checks and balances for the healthy promotion of trade unionism. The Committee emphasizes that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria such as by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee considers that not every contravention of industrial relations legislation, nor every violation of a judicial order to stop a strike, nor every conviction for the range of criminal offences alluded to constitute necessarily acts of such a nature as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties. In light of the above, the Committee welcomes the initiatives of the Governments of Balochistan and Sindh to refer the Committee’s comments to the Tripartite Consultative Committee. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to make the grounds for disqualification more restrictive and to take the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

Right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that sections 8 of the IRA and 6 of the BIRA, the KPIRA, and the PIRA, regulate in detail the internal functioning of trade unions. Specifically, their subsection 1(j), respectively, provides that the constitution of a union should provide for a term for which a trade union officer may be elected and specifies that it should not exceed two years; and subsection 1(l), respectively, provides for the frequency of meetings of a union’s executive and general body. The Committee further notes that the Commission (under section 48(2) of the IRA) or the Labour Court (under sections 67(2) of the BIRA, 63(2) of the KPIRA, and 59(3) of the PIRA) have the power to order a person who has been expelled from a trade union to be restored to its membership or to order that he or she be paid out of the union funds such sum by way of compensation or damages as the Commission or Labour Court thinks just. The Committee notes that section 6(1)(j) and (l) and section 60(2) and (3) of the SIRA contain similar provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the industrial relations laws prescribe the general guidelines/requirements for registration of a trade union and the requisite information that a trade union constitution must contain, however, the formulation of constitution lies with the union itself; (ii) the requirement that a union officer may be elected for two years promotes trade union democracy and gives a chance to other members to become part of the union executive; and (iii) provisions are there for a checks and balances purpose with the aim to promote healthy trade union activities in the country where workers are not punished by their unions for not participating in any illegal strike or lockout. The Committee reiterates that, pursuant to the rights of workers’ organizations under the Convention to draw up their constitutions and rules, to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes, certain matters should be left to the unions themselves, such as to set the period of terms of office and to expel or sanction union members according to their constitution and by-laws. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation in this respect and to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that sections 65(2) and (3) of the IRA, 68(2) and (3) of the BIRA and the SIRA, 64(2) and (3) of the KPIRA, and 60(2) and (3) of the PIRA, provide that “no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act”, and that representation is possible in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Commission, or arbitrator, as applicable under the acts, only with the permission of the Labour Court, the Commission or the arbitrator, as the case may be. The Committee notes that section 61(2) and (3) of the SIRA contains the same provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) conciliation is defined as a means of assisting the parties to settle the dispute by themselves, through neutral third party intervention, aimed at reaching a non-imposed mutually agreed settlement when bilateral negotiations have failed or reached an impasse; involving legal practitioners at this stage may drag parties into legal battles thereby frustrating the resolution of the dispute; and (ii) as to the proceedings before the Labour Court, an arbitrator or the tribunal, the word “permission” means that a formal authorization of the parties to an industrial dispute is submitted in the form of a Wakalat Nama (Power of Attorney), and the court, tribunal or the arbitrator is mandatorily bound by law to accept such authorization of the parties engaging legal practitioners. The Committee takes due note of this information.

The Committee had previously noted that, under sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA and 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, the KPIRA, and the PIRA, a go-slow appears to be an unfair labour practice. The Committee notes that section 18(1)(e) of the SIRA contains the same provision. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) industrial relations legislation needs to maintain industrial peace, promote healthy trade unionism and keep a balance between the rights of employees and those of employers; (ii) go slow is often used as a tool to pressurize the employer by compromising quantity of work rather than the quality, which means that amending the law is likely to harm economic activity; (iii) according to the Government of Balochistan, a debate has been initiated in a tripartite consultation forum on the issue of a go-slow; (iv) according to the Government of Sindh, a debate has been initiated in a tripartite consultative forum on the issue; (v) the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa states that allowing a go-slow as a legal form of industrial action can adversely affect the productivity of the concerned establishment and the overall economic activity in the Province, and that such amendment may not be adopted; and (vi) Employers’ Federation of Pakistan (EFP) has strongly opposed such amendment as it could have a negative impact on industrial growth. The Committee reiterates that restrictions as to the forms of strike action (including go-slows) can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful. The Committee welcomes the initiatives of the Governments of Balochistan and Sindh to refer its comments to the Tripartite Consultative Committee. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful work slowdown is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise take steps to amend their legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) sections 42(3) of the IRA, 48(3) of the BIRA, 44(3) of the KPIRA, and 40(3) of the PIRA, provide that, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the Government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that a strike can also be prohibited at any time before the expiry of 30 days if “it is satisfied that the continuance of such a strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”; (ii) the Government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute “of national importance” (sections 45 of the IRA and 49 of the BIRA) or in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement (sections 45 of the IRA and the KPIRA, section 49 of the BIRA, and section 41 of the PIRA); (iii) a strike carried out in contravention of the above sections, is deemed illegal by virtue of sections 43(1)(c) of the IRA, 63(1)(c) of the BIRA, 59(1)(c) of the KPIRA and 55(1)(c) of the PIRA; and (iv) according to the schedules of the IRA, the KPIRA, and the PIRA, the list of public utility services include services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways. The Committee notes that sections 41(3) and (4), 42 and 56(1)(c) of the SIRA contain the same provisions as the KPIRA and the PIRA, and that the BIRA and the SIRA schedules list similar public utility services as the other schedules. It also notes that the Government confines itself to repeating the content of the abovementioned provisions, and that the EFP strongly opposes any change in the existing provisions in the four Provinces. The Committee reiterates that the prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (i) in the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in the event of an acute national or local crisis; or (iii) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee considers that not every strike lasting longer than 30 days fulfils these conditions; and that services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways do not normally constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, although they are important public services in which a minimum service could be required in case of a strike. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that any prohibition or restriction imposed on the right to strike is in full conformity with the Convention and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures, in consultation with the social partners, to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) following the prohibition of a strike by the Government pursuant to the above-noted sections, the dispute is referred to the NIRC or the Labour Court for adjudication; (ii) a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, may apply to the Commission or the Labour Court, as applicable, for adjudication of the dispute (sections 42(2) of the IRA, 48(2) of the BIRA, 44(2) of the KPIRA, and 40(2) of the PIRA); and (iii) pending adjudication, the Commission or the Labour Court can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (sections 61 of the IRA, 62 of the BIRA, 58 of the KPIRA, and 54 of the PIRA). The Committee notes that sections 41(2) and 55 of the SIRA contain the same provisions. It welcomes the Government’s indication that the issue will be placed on the agenda of upcoming tripartite consultation committees at the federal and provincial levels, and that if both employers’ and workers’ organizations agree to a legislative amendment along the lines of the Committee’s comments, the law would be amended accordingly. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only in cases where the strike can be restricted, or even prohibited, or at the request of both parties to the dispute above, and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) commencing, continuing, instigating others to take part in, or expending or supplying money to, or otherwise acting in furtherance or support of an illegal strike or a go-slow is an unfair labour practice (sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA, 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, the KPIRA, and the PIRA), punishable by a fine of up to 20,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR) (sections 72(3) of the BIRA, 68(3) of the KPIRA, and 64(3) of the PIRA), and/or imprisonment which may extend to 30 days (section 67(3) of the IRA); (ii) contravening an order to call off a strike is sanctioned as follows: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; and debarring of trade union officers from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms (sections 44(10) of the IRA, 64(7) of the BIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA and 56(7) of the PIRA). The Committee notes that sections 18(1)(e), 57(7) and 65(3) of the SIRA contain the same provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the sanctions for contravening an order to call off a strike by a court are there for the maintenance of industrial peace in the country and upholding the decision of the Court; (ii) the law provides that the labour courts may review the decision if good and sufficient cause is shown by an affected worker within seven days of an order of dismissal; (iii) these sanctions are not applied against workers for having carried out a peaceful strike; and (iv) a labour court applies these sanctions judiciously and only after holding such inquiry as it deems fit. While noting that the Government states that such sanctions are only applied against workers who resort to violence against persons or property during a strike, the Committee observes that the legislative provisions imposing the sanctions refer, more broadly, to illegal strikes, which may include peaceful strikes that do not comply with formalities such as notice requirements. The Committee recalls that: (i) no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and on no account should measures of imprisonment be imposed except in case of violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights and only pursuant to legislation punishing such acts; (ii) the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers and cancellation of trade union registration, implies a grave risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association; and (iii) sanctions for illegal strike action should be imposed only if the prohibitions or restrictions on the right to strike are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation accordingly and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise take measures to amend the legislation.

Articles 5 and 6. Right of organizations to establish federations and confederations. The Committee had previously noted that, under section 14(4) of the IRA, no trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having the same, similar, or identical name. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the provisions seek to prevent registration of such unions that are not true representatives of workers. The Committee observes that, contrary to the Government’s indication in its last report that “similar name” was equivalent to “same name”, the Government now states that the words “same” and “similar” are not synonymous. The Committee considers that a federation or confederation which has a similar name but not the same or identical name as an already existing federation or confederation should not be prevented from being formed and registered. The Committee requests the Government to take all measures to amend the legislation by deleting the term “similar”.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 27 November 2013 and 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature. It also notes the observations of the Employers Federation of Pakistan (EFP) included in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015 referring to new allegations concerning acts of violence and arrests against striking and protesting workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. It further notes the Government’s reply to previous ITUC allegations.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted: (i) that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces; (ii) the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments covering more than one province (section 1(2) and (3) of the IRA), and did not address most of the Committee’s previous comments; and (iii) the adoption in 2010 of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, all of which raised similar issues as the IRA. The Committee notes the adoption of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA), which replaces the former industrial relations legislation in the province, and the amendment of the BIRA in 2015. It also notes the Government’s statement that the responsibility for the coordination of labour-related issues and the responsibility to ensure that provincial labour laws are drafted in accordance with international ratified Conventions, lie with the federal Government.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application: workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Factory Ordinance maintained by the federal Government (section 1(3)(a)); workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)); members of the security staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), or drawing wages in a pay group not lower than Group V in the PIAC establishment (section 1(3)(c)); workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d)); workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons, excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e)); and workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with section 2(x) and (xvii)). The Committee had further noted that section 1 of the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA further exclude: (i) workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Factory Ordinance maintained by the federal Government; (ii) members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or an airport (and seaport – BIRA and KPIRA); (iii) members of the security or fire service staff of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas; (iv) persons employed in the administration of the State except those employed as workmen by the railway and Pakistan Post; and (v) in the PIRA and the KPIRA, persons employed in an establishment or institution providing education or emergency services excluding those run on a commercial basis.

The Committee notes that section 1 of the new SIRA excludes all the abovementioned five categories of workers, except for the members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of a seaport. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the IRA excludes security institutions and installations exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan; (ii) the rationale behind excluding workers of institutions for treatment or care and of charitable organizations is that industrial action can put the lives of sick, infirm and destitute people in danger; but that, nonetheless, workers in these organizations have the right to form associations; (iii) public officials and employees of publicly owned undertakings, which are excluded from the purview of industrial relations legislation, get coverage under article 17 of the Constitution, which grants every citizen the right to form and join associations and is enforced by the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (see for example the All Pakistan Clerks Association (APCA), the Muttahida Mahaz e Asatza (National Federation of Teachers), the All Pakistan Local Government Workers Federation, the Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA), and the Punjab Civil Secretariat Employees’ Association); (iv) according to the Government of Balochistan, necessary amendments are being proposed to ensure that under the BIRA only the armed forces and police are excluded in line with the provisions of the Convention; and (v) according to the Government of Sindh, the matter has been referred to the Law Department for opinion before proposing any amendments to the law.

The Committee notes that the BIRA, as amended in 2015, retains the exclusions enumerated above. The Committee considers that the exceptions relating to the armed forces and the police must be construed in a restrictive manner, and thus do not automatically apply to all employees who may carry a weapon in the course of their duties or to civilian personnel in the armed forces, fire service personnel, workers in private security firms and members of the security services of civil aviation companies, workers engaged in security printing services and members of the security or fire services of oil refineries, airports and seaports. The Committee emphasizes that these workers, without distinction whatsoever, should be granted the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing – on the understanding that the right to strike is not absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, or even prohibited, for example in essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). Welcoming the initiative of the Government of Sindh, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as all other governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to further and defend their social, economic and occupational interests, and to provide information on any progress made in this respect. As regards public service, the Committee requests the Government to provide legislative and other information detailing how the abovementioned associations of public officials and employees of publicly owned undertakings benefit from the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention.

Managerial employees. The Committee had previously noted that, pursuant to sections 31(2) of the IRA and 17(2) of the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA, an employer may require that a person, upon his or her appointment or promotion to a managerial position, shall cease to be and shall be disqualified from being a member or an officer of a trade union; and that the definition of “worker” in section 2 of the IRA, the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA, excludes any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. The Committee notes that sections 2 and 17(2) of the new SIRA contain the same provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that the industrial relations legislation considers any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment as an employer, and that managerial employees have all those rights of association that employers have under the laws. The Committee observes that the definition of “employer” in section 2 of the IRA, the BIRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA refers to any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment, including the proprietor, and includes every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof. With respect to workers performing functions that are of a managerial character, the Committee recalls that it is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 to deny such workers the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers, provided that the persons concerned have the right to form or join their own organizations and that the categories of such managerial staff are not defined so broadly as to weaken the organizations of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership and even, in small enterprises, prevent the establishment of trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, and to request the governments of the provinces to indicate, by what means it is ensured that these categories of staff are not defined too broadly.

Rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously referred to the need to amend section 3(a) of the IRA and the BIRA, and 3(i) of the KPIRA and the PIRA, according to which no worker shall be entitled to be a member of more than one trade union. The Committee notes that the new SIRA contains the same provision in section 3(a). It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) there is a restriction on double employment of a worker under the Factories Act, which means that a worker cannot be allowed to become member of more than one trade union; (ii) labour legislation does not recognize part-time work and there are only limited numbers of workers who are engaged in part-time work; (iii) the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has informed that the question of allowing a worker to be member of different trade unions based on the number of occupations will be raised in the Provincial Tripartite Consultation Forum; (iv) similarly, the Government of Sindh has informed that the Law Department is being consulted on the matter; and (v) the Government of Punjab indicates that the prohibition ensures that workers do not join more than one trade union in the same organization since they are also supposed to vote and this may cause ambiguity. The Committee observes that, while, as indicated by the Government, under section 48 of the Factories Act, adult workers shall not be allowed to work in any factory on any day on which they have already been working in any other factory, this does not seem to preclude that workers in the private and public sector or sectors may be engaged in more than one job in the same or different occupations. The Committee reiterates that these workers should be allowed to join the corresponding unions as full members (or at least, if they so wish, to join at the same time trade unions at the enterprise, branch and national levels) so as not to prejudice their right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. Welcoming the initiatives of the Governments of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as all governments of the provinces, take all measures to amend the legislation taking into account the abovementioned principle.

The Committee had previously noted that, pursuant to sections 8(2)(b) of the IRA and 6(2)(b) of the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA, no other trade union is entitled to registration if there are already two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which that trade union is connected, unless it has, as members, not less than 20 per cent of the workers employed in that establishment, group of establishments or industry.

The Committee notes that section 6(2)(b) of the SIRA contains the same provision. It also notes the Government’s indication that these provisions seek to avoid mushroom growth of ineffective trade unions, maintain effectiveness of collective bargaining agreements and discourage formation of pocket unions through employer support having no actual base, and in no way to prohibit workers from changing their union or forming a union for reasons of independence, effectiveness or ideological choice. The Committee reiterates that trade union unity imposed directly or indirectly by law is contrary to the Convention and notes the EFP’s statement that, while supporting the views expressed by the Government, this matter could be discussed between the social partners for any amendment if required. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that workers may establish organizations of their own choosing and that no distinction as to the minimum membership requirement is made between the first two or more registered trade unions and the newly created unions. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation, while encouraging consultation with the social partners, in regard to such measures.

In its previous comment, the Committee had noted that sections 62(3) of the IRA, 25(3) of the KPIRA and the PIRA, and 30(3) of the BIRA, provide that, after the certification of a collective bargaining unit, no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such a unit. The Committee notes that section 25(2) of the new SIRA contains the same provision. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) since 1969, Pakistan follows an industrial relations model where a collective bargaining agent, once determined, has the exclusive right to represent all workers at the workplace (both members and non-members), in order to exercise meaningful checks and balances for promotion of healthy trade unionism and avoid ambiguities arising out of overlapping; and (ii) the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has informed that the matter will be raised in the Provincial Tripartite Consultation Forum. The Committee reiterates that, while a provision requiring certification of a collective bargaining agent for a corresponding bargaining unit is not contrary to the Convention, the workers’ right to establish and join trade union organizations of their own choosing implies the possibility to create – if the workers so choose – more than one organization per bargaining unit and to freely determine the scope of unions created in relation to such unit, including the rights of minority unions (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 225). Welcoming the initiative of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

Rights and advantages of the most representative trade unions. The Committee had previously noted that certain rights were granted (in particular, to represent workers in any proceedings and to check-off facilities) only to collective bargaining agents, i.e. the most representative trade unions (sections 20(b) and (c), 22, 33, 35 and 65(1) of the IRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 32, 41, 42, 68(1) of the BIRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 28, 37, 38, 64(1) of the KPIRA; and sections 24(20)(b) and (c), 27, 33, 34, 60(1) of the PIRA. The Committee notes that sections 24(20)(b) and (c), 27, 34, 35, 61(1) of the SIRA contain the same provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) a collective bargaining agent is an elected body for the whole establishment; (ii) first priority is to include representatives of the collective bargaining agent union to ensure effective and meaningful representation of workers in the proceedings, since the collective bargaining agent is legally authorized to fight for the rights of all the workers of the concerned establishment; and (iii) as for the check-off facility, it is provided only with the consent of each individual worker under the industrial relations legislation. The Committee reiterates that the distinction between most representative and minority unions should be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights (for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultation by the authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations); however, the distinction should not have the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means of defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, making representations on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances), of organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes, as provided for in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure full respect for the abovementioned principles, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee notes with deep concern that, 18 years after its first observation on the issue, and after having stated on several occasions that legislative measures to repeal section 27-B were being taken, the Government now asserts that this provision is not in contravention with the Convention. In the view of the Committee, provisions of this type infringe the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing these organizations from determining whether other qualified persons (such as full-time union officers or pensioners) should be candidates for election and by creating a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation by making it more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, along the lines of section 8(d) of the IRA.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted that sections 5(d) of the IRA, 15(e) of the BIRA, and 15(d) of the KPIRA and the PIRA, confer on the Registrar the power to inspect the accounts and records of a registered trade union, or investigate or hold such inquiry into the affairs of a trade union as he or she deems fit. The Committee notes that section 15(e) of the SIRA contains the same provisions. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Registrar exercises vigilance upon the affairs of a registered trade union and is empowered to inspect its accounts and records so that the unions work properly and the funds of unions are utilized transparently; (ii) the spirit of this non-coercive and rather facilitative measure is to prevent malpractices in the affairs of unions and ensure that union funds are not embezzled by any corrupt executive; and (iii) as for the holding of an inquiry in the affairs of a trade union, a Registrar does not act arbitrarily but only after receiving any complaint and/or if there are sufficient grounds to exercise such powers. The Committee welcomes the Government’s views concerning the limited purpose of the Registrar’s powers and the conditions for their use for the holding of an inquiry into trade union affairs. The Committee considers, however, that the wording of the relevant legislative provisions (“as he deems fit”) is excessively broad. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation by explicitly limiting the powers of financial supervision of the Registrar to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports and to verification in cases of serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law or of a complaint or call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement from a significant number of workers. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take such measures as well.

Article 4. Dissolution of organizations. The Committee had previously noted that the registration of a trade union can be cancelled by the Registrar for numerous reasons set out in sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e) and (f), 11(5), and 16(5) of the IRA; and section 12(1)(a) and (b), 12(3)(d), and 12(2) and (7) of the BIRA, the KPIRA and the PIRA, and that, under the IRA, the Commission’s decision directing the Registrar to cancel the registration of a union cannot be appealed in court (section 59). The Committee recalled that the dissolution and suspension of trade union organizations constitute extreme forms of interference by the authorities in the activities of organizations and should, therefore, be accompanied by all the necessary guarantees, which can only be ensured through a normal judicial procedure, which should also have the effect of a stay of execution. The Committee notes that section 12 of the SIRA provides for grounds for cancellation by the Registrar, if so directed by the labour court. It also notes that the Government indicates that: (i) registration of a trade union is cancelled at federal level only on the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) (judicial body the decision of which can be appealed before its full bench (sections 54, 57 and 58 of the IRA)) or at provincial level by the labour courts; and (ii) the Registrar of Trade Unions, on its own, has no jurisdiction to cancel the trade union registration (section 11(2) of the IRA; 12(2) of the BIRA, the KPIRA, the PIRA and the SIRA). The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to provide information on all occurrences of cancelled registration since January 2016 and the procedures followed for such occurrences.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes that the Government provides no further information in this respect. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, and a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee welcomes the ILO project financed by the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards targeting four countries and notably Pakistan. The Committee trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation and the accompanying direct request.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh IRA (SIRA), sections 1(4) of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), 2(ix) of the IRA, 2(h) of the BIRA, 2(vii) of the KPIRA, and 2(viii) of the PIRA and SIRA, the acts appear to apply only to workers under a contract of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the right of association is guaranteed in the Constitution and, while the industrial relations laws deal with trade unions operating in establishments where employee–employer relations exist, there is no bar for self-employed workers to organize under the Constitution or other laws. The Committee requests the Government to indicate under which specific laws self-employed workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention.

The Committee notes that the BIRA excludes tribal areas from its application (section 1(2)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers and employers within tribal areas excluded by the BIRA enjoy the rights enshrined by the Convention.

The Committee notes that, according to section 6 of the IRA, any trade union may apply for registration provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 6, which implies that there should be at least two trade unions in every establishment, promotes the formation of trade unions. Since such a requirement would seem to impede the formation of trade unions in establishments where there are no unions or just one union, as no union could apply for registration, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 6 of the IRA.

Article 3. Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee notes that the IRA contains several sections concerning disqualification from holding a trade union office. First, under section 18 of the IRA, a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more for committing an offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code, shall be disqualified from being elected as, or from being an officer of, a trade union, unless a period of five years has elapsed after the completion of the sentence; under section 7 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, a person who has been convicted of contraventions to the Act (KPIRA and SIRA), or heinous offence under the Pakistan Penal Code, shall be disqualified from being elected as, or from being, an officer of a trade union. The Committee recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, 2012, paragraph 106). Second, the NIRC (“Commission” – section 44(10) of the IRA), or the Labour Court (section 64(7) of the BIRA and SIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA, and 56(7) of the PIRA), have the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike (this point is further discussed below). The Committee recalls that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 120). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to bring it into accordance with the principles above and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that sections 8 of the IRA and 6 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, regulates in detail the internal functioning of trade unions. Specifically, its subsection 1(j), respectively, provides that the constitution of a union should provide for a term for which a trade union officer may be elected and specifies that it should not exceed two years; and subsection 1(l), respectively, provides for the frequency of meetings of a union’s executive and general body. The Committee further notes that the Commission (under section 48(2) of the IRA) or the Labour Court (under sections 67(2) of the BIRA and SIRA, 63(2) of the KPIRA, and 59(3) of the PIRA) have the power to order a person who has been expelled from a trade union to be restored to its membership or to order that he or she be paid out of the union funds such sum by way of compensation or damages as the Commission/Labour Court thinks just. The Committee considers that all of these matters should be left for an organization to decide and regulate. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation in this respect and to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee notes that sections 65(2) and (3) of the IRA, 68(2) and (3) of the BIRA and SIRA, 64(2) and (3) of the KPIRA, and 60(2) and (3) of the PIRA, provide that “no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act”, and that representation is possible in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Commission, or arbitrator, as applicable under the acts, only with the permission of the Labour Court, the Commission or the arbitrator, as the case may be. The Committee considers that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts, such as lawyers and agents, to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to review the legislation so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are allowed to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceedings should they so desire, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise take these measures.

The Committee notes that, under sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA and 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, a go-slow appears to be an unfair labour practice. The Committee is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action (including go-slow) can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful (see General Survey, 2012, op. cit., paragraph 126). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful work slowdown is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend their legislation.

The Committee notes that sections 42(3) of the IRA, 48(3) of the BIRA and SIRA, 44(3) of the KPIRA, and 40(3) of the PIRA, provide that, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the Government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that a strike can also be prohibited at any time before the expiry of 30 days if “it is satisfied that the continuance of such a strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”. The Committee further notes that, under sections 45 of the IRA and KPIRA, 49 of the BIRA, 41 of the PIRA, and 49 of the SIRA, the Government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute “of national importance” (this precision is not in the KPIRA or the PIRA), or in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement. A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under these sections, as well as the sections noted above, is deemed illegal by virtue of sections 43(1)(c) of the IRA, 63(1)(c) of the BIRA and SIRA, 59(1)(c) of the KPIRA, and 55(1)(c) of the PIRA. The Committee notes that, according to the schedules of the IRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA setting out the list of public utility services, these include services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (1) in the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in the event of an acute national or local crisis; or (3) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new laws have been framed after consultation with the social partners and keeping in mind national requirements. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that any prohibition or restriction imposed on the right to strike is in full conformity with the abovementioned principles and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures, in consultation with the social partners, to likewise amend the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to ask the Government of Balochistan to provide a copy of the schedule defining public utility services in the BIRA.

The Committee notes that, following the prohibition of a strike by the Government pursuant to the above-noted sections 42 and 45 of the IRA, 48 and 49 of the BIRA, 44 and 45 of the KPIRA, 40 and 41 of the PIRA, and 48 and 49 of the SIRA, the dispute is referred to the Commission and/or the Labour Court for adjudication. The Committee further notes that sections 42(2) of the IRA, 48(2) of the BIRA, 44(2) of the KPIRA, 40(2) of the PIRA, and 48(2) of the SIRA, authorize a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, to apply to the Commission/Labour Court, as applicable, for adjudication of the dispute. Pending adjudication, the Commission/Labour Court can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (sections 61 of the IRA, 62 of the BIRA and SIRA, 58 of the KPIRA, and 54 of the PIRA). The Committee recalls that a provision, which permits public authorities or either party to unilaterally request the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such a system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee considers that recourse to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a collective labour dispute and a strike is only acceptable under certain circumstances, namely: (i) when the two parties to the dispute so agree; or (ii) when the strike in question may be restricted, or even prohibited, that is: (a) in the case of disputes concerning public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (b) in conflicts in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or (c) in situations of acute national or local crisis, but only for a limited period of time and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, 2012, op. cit., paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only in cases where the exercise of the strike can be restricted or even prohibited or at the request of both parties to the dispute above and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee notes that, under sections 32(1)(e) of the IRA, 18(1)(e) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA, and SIRA, commencing, continuing, instigating others to take part in, or expending or supplying money to, or otherwise acting in furtherance or support of an illegal strike or a go-slow is an unfair labour practice punishable by a fine of up to 20,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR) (sections 72(3) of the BIRA and SIRA, 68(3) of the KPIRA, and 64(3) of the PIRA), and/or imprisonment which may extend to 30 days (section 67(3) of the IRA). The Committee further notes that sections 44(10) of the IRA, 64(7) of the BIRA and SIRA, 60(7) of the KPIRA, and 56(7) of the PIRA, provide for the following sanctions for contravening an order to call off a strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; and debarring of trade union officers from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms. The Committee emphasizes that sanctions for strike action can be imposed only if the prohibitions or restrictions on the right to strike are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further considers that the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers and cancellation of trade union registration, implies a grave risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association. With regard to penal sanctions, the Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and on no account should measures of imprisonment be imposed. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principles above and to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take measures to likewise amend the legislation.

Articles 5 and 6. Right of organizations to establish federations and confederations. The Committee notes that, under section 14(4) of the IRA, no trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having the same, similar, or identical name. The Committee requests the Government to clarify what interpretation is given to the wording “similar name”. Noting that the Government indicates that “similar names” means “same name”, the Committee requests the Government to take all measures to amend the legislation to delete “similar”, since it is a synonym of “same”, to avoid that a federation or confederation which have similar but not the same name be prevented from being formed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

Workers’ and employers’ organizations’ comments. The Committee notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the right to strike, in a communication dated 29 August 2012, which are dealt with in the General Report of the Committee.

The Committee further notes the Government’s observation on the 2010 comments submitted by the All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) regarding the difficulties in registering trade unions for the industries established in the City of Sialkot. The Government indicates that, while the management of the two unions concerned went to the Labour Courts and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) against the registration, the unions lodged cases of unfair labour practices against the management. The cases were decided by the courts in favour of one of the unions, but the members of the union backed down; as for the second union, the establishment was closed due to losses. The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) submitted on 31 July 2012, alleging violence leading to injury and arrests during demonstrations and strikes in the aviation, textile, education and health sectors, as well as dismissals following a strike in the electrical sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide comments on the above ITUC comments as well as on the 2011 ITUC allegations.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it had noted that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces. In this respect, the Committee expressed the hope that any new legislation, whether at the provincial or national levels, would be adopted in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that these instruments would be in full conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that industrial relations acts have been adopted in the Provinces of Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa, Punjab and Sindh in 2010.

The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments which cover more than one province (section 1(2) and (3)), replaces the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2011, commented upon by the Committee. It notes with regret that most of its previous comments on the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, and on the IRO, 2011, have not been addressed by the IRA, 2012. It further notes that the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 (SIRA), all raise similar issues as the IRA, 2012.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee notes that the IRA, 2012, excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application: workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Factory Ordinance maintained by the federal Government (section 1(3)(a)); workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)); members of the security staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), or drawing wages in a pay group not lower than Group V in the PIAC establishment (section 1(3)(c)); workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d)); workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons, excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e)); and workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with section 2(x) and (xvii)).

The Committee notes that section 1 of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA further excludes: workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Factory Ordinance maintained by the federal Government; members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or an airport (and seaport – BIRA, KPIRA and SIRA); members of the security or fire service staff of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas; and, in the PIRA and KPIRA only, persons employed in an establishment or institution providing education or emergency services excluding those run on a commercial basis. All exclude persons employed in the administration of the State but include those employed as workmen by the railway and Pakistan Post.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the industrial laws are framed by national circumstances and in the light of the space provided by Article 9 of the Convention; and (2) workers engaged in agriculture have the right to form unions under these enactments. The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2 of the Convention, workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and that the only exceptions authorized to this principle are set out in Article 9(1), which allows States to determine the extent to which the guarantees provided for in the Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to further and defend their social, economic and occupational interests.

Managerial employees. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to sections 31(2) of the IRA and 17(2) of the BIRA, KPIRA PIRA and SIRA, an employer may require that a person, upon his or her appointment or promotion to a managerial position, shall cease to be and shall be disqualified from being a member or an officer of a trade union. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that managerial workers can form associations. The Committee notes that the definition of workers in section 2 of the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, excludes any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate, and to request the governments of the provinces to indicate, the legislation under which, in full respect of the Convention, managerial employees may form and join associations.

Rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that sections 8(2)(a) of the IRA and 6(2) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, provide that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same industry may be registered. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no bar in the IRA for the establishment of inter-professional organizations or for affiliation by such unions with such federations. The Committee notes that this is the case for the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA as well.

The Committee notes that, under section 3(a) of the IRA, no worker shall be entitled to be a member of more than one trade union. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how workers who have more than one occupation and/or are employed by different establishments can exercise their right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing for furthering and defending their interests, particularly in the light of the restrictions imposed by sections 8(2)(a) of the IRA, providing that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same industry may be registered. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 3 strengthens trade unions by imposing restrictions on a worker not to be a member of more than one trade union, as being a member of one trade union makes the worker more committed to his political affiliation/cause and if a worker is a member of two unions in different establishments, or in the same establishments, it may create legal complications. The Committee notes that similar issues are raised under section 3(a) of the BIRA and the SIRA, and 3(i) of the KPIRA and the PIRA, in the light of the restrictions imposed by sections 6(2)(a) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA. The Committee recalls that it is important to allow workers in the private and public sectors who are engaged in more than one job in different occupations or sectors to join the corresponding unions as full members (or at least, if they so wish, to join trade unions at the branch level as well as the enterprise level at the same time). In other words, obliging workers to only join one trade union could unduly prejudice their right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, paragraph 91). The Committee requests the Government to take all measures to amend the legislation taking into account the abovementioned principle. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee notes that, pursuant to sections 8(2)(b) of the IRA and 6(2)(b) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, no other trade union is entitled to registration if there are already two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which that trade union is connected, unless it has, as members, not less than 20 per cent of the workers employed in that establishment, group of establishments or industry. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this was fixed after consultation with the social partners and aims at promoting healthy trade union activities. The Committee considers that it is important for workers to be able to change trade union or to establish a new union for reasons of independence, effectiveness or ideological choice. Consequently, trade union unity imposed directly or indirectly by law is contrary to the Convention (General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 92). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that workers may establish organizations of their own choosing and that no distinction as to the minimum membership requirement is made between the first two or more registered trade unions and the newly created unions. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee further notes that sections 62(3) of the IRA, 25(3) of the KPIRA and PIRA, and 30(3) of the BIRA and SIRA, provide that, after the certification of a collective bargaining unit, no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such a unit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the collective bargaining unit is determined in consultation with the employer and collective bargaining agents. The Committee considers that, while a provision requiring certification of a collective bargaining agent for a corresponding bargaining unit is not contrary to the Convention, workers’ right to establish and join trade union organizations of their own choosing implies the possibility to create – if the workers so choose – more than one organization per bargaining unit. Taking into account the abovementioned principle, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces likewise amend the legislation.

Rights and advantages of the most representative trade unions. The Committee notes that certain rights are granted (in particular, to represent workers in any proceedings and to check-off facilities) only to collective bargaining agents, i.e. the most representative trade unions (sections 20(b) and (c), 22, 33, 35 and 65(1) of the IRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 32, 41, 42, 68(1) of the BIRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 28, 37, 38, 64(1) of the KPIRA; sections 24(20)(b) and (c), 27, 33, 34, 60(1) of the PIRA; sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 32, 41, 42, 68(1) of the SIRA). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the right to check-off facilities and the right to call a strike are genuine rights of a collective bargaining agent; (2) all the social partners agreed on these rights during tripartite consultation for drafting of the new law; (3) as far as the issue of the right of representation is concerned, it can be mutually decided between the collective bargaining agent and the opposition. The Committee considers that workers’ freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or in practice, in the granting of privileges extending beyond that of priority in representation for such purposes as collective bargaining or consultation by the Government or for the purpose of nominating delegations to international bodies. This distinction should not therefore have the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means of defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, making representations on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances), of organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes, as provided for in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 97). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure full respect for the abovementioned principles.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who had been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that: (1) a bill to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 had been submitted to the Senate; (2) the federal Cabinet at its meeting held on 1 May 2010 approved the repeal of this provision and that the final legislation was under preparation. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the matter is under consideration with the Senate. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that sections 5(d) of the IRA, 15(e) of the BIRA, and 15(d) of the KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA, confers on the registrar the power to inspect the accounts and records of a registered trade union, or investigate or hold such inquiry into the affairs of a trade union as he or she deems fit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the registrar of a trade union is a public functionary who works for the smooth functioning of trade unions and who does not indulge in internal administration of the organizations during financial audit and scrutiny of annual returns. The Committee considers that supervision of the finances of a trade union is compatible with the Convention when: (1) it is limited to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports; (2) there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to the rule of law; or (3) it is limited to cases in which a significant number of workers call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement or lodge a complaint (General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 109). Furthermore, the Committee considers that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect such accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 110). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure full respect of the abovementioned principles. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the governments of the provinces take such measures as well.

Finally, the Committee is raising in a direct request issues regarding certain restrictions to the right to strike (prohibition of types of strike; broad definition of services where strike action can be forbidden; compulsory arbitration at the request of either party to a conflict; and penal sanctions, in particular for supporting illegal strikes).

Article 4. Dissolution of organizations. The Committee notes that the registration of a trade union can be cancelled for the following reasons: following a complaint made by the registrar that the trade union has contravened the provisions of the Act or its constitution, or failed to submit its annual returns to the registrar (IRA), or obtained less than 10 per cent (IRA) or 15 per cent (BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA – the latter specifying “during two consecutives referendums”) of total votes polled in an election for determination of a collective bargaining agent (sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e) and (f) of the IRA, 12(1)(a) and (b), and 12(3)(d) of the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA, and 12(1)(a) and (b) of the SIRA); if the statement of expenditure of a union is found incorrect following an audit of the annual returns (section 16(5) of the IRA); if a person who is disqualified under section 18 for having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more for committing an offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code is elected to be an officer of a registered trade union (section 11(5) of the IRA); for having been convicted of the offence of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds (BIRA and PIRA), or of contraventions to the Act (KPIRA and SIRA), or heinous offence under the Pakistan Penal Code, is elected to be an officer of a registered trade union (section 12(2) and (7) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA). The Committee recalls that the dissolution and suspension of trade union organizations constitute extreme forms of interference by the authorities in the activities of organizations and should therefore be accompanied by all the necessary guarantees. This can only be ensured through a normal judicial procedure, which should also have the effect of a stay of execution (General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 162). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention taking into account the principles above and to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the governments of the provinces take the measures to likewise amend the legislation.

The Committee notes that, under the IRA, the Commission’s decision directing the registrar to cancel the registration of a union cannot be appealed in court (section 59). The Committee recalls that cancellation of a trade union’s registration should only be possible through judicial channels and that measures of suspension or dissolution by the administrative authority constitute serious infringements of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further emphasizes that judges should be able to deal with the substance of a case to enable them to decide whether or not the measure of dissolution would not be in violation of the rights accorded to occupational organizations by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRA so as to ensure that any decision to cancel trade union registration can be appealed in court.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the rules have not yet been finalized. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, and a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Committee strongly hopes that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes that a new Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) was promulgated by the President of Pakistan in July 2011 and is currently pending before the National Assembly. The Committee raises the following points with regard to this new legislation.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that by virtue of its sections 1(3) and 3(xi), read together, the IRO appears to apply only to workers under a contract of employment. The Committee considers that the criterion for determining the persons who should enjoy this right to organize should not be based on the existence of an employment relationship, which is often non-existent, for example in the case of self-employed workers or those who practice liberal professions, or in the informal sector. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether self-employed workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention.

The Committee notes that according to section 6 of the IRO, any trade union may apply for registration provided that there shall be at least two trade unions in an establishment. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the meaning of this provision and to provide information on its application in practice.

The Committee notes that under section 3 of the IRO, no worker shall be entitled to be a member of more than one trade union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how workers who have more than one occupation and/or are employed by different establishments can exercise their right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing for furthering and defending their interests, particularly in the light of the restrictions imposed by section 8(2)(a), providing that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same industry may be registered.

Articles 5 and 6. Right of organizations to establish federations and confederations. The Committee notes that under section 14(4) of the IRO, no trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having the same, similar or identical name. The Committee requests the Government to clarify what interpretation is given to the wording “similar name”.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2011. It notes, in particular, that the Conference Committee requested the Government to provide to the Committee of Experts, for its examination this year, detailed information on the progress made in bringing the national legislation and practice into full conformity with freedom of association principles as well as all provincial laws relevant to the application of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received.

Comments of trade union organizations.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 August 2011 alleging acts of violence (attacks, kidnapping, torture, killings) against trade unionists. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had noted the 2010 comments submitted by the All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) regarding the difficulties in registering trade unions for the industries established in the City of Sialkot, as well as the comments submitted by the ITUC alleging acts of violence against protesters, night-time raids, arrests and harassment of trade union leaders and members, as well as other violations of the Convention. The Committee noted in particular the ITUC’s comments concerning the requirement that any gathering of more than four people be subject to police authorization and its impact on trade union activities, as well as the denial of the right to strike to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) and the possibility to impose penalties of imprisonment against illegal strikes, go-slows and picketing activities. The Committee regrets that the Government provided no observations thereon. It therefore once again recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of workers’ organizations, and that workers have the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee urges the Government to conduct an independent investigation into all of the abovementioned serious allegations of violence against trade unionists and to report on the outcome and the measure taken to punish those found responsible.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Pakistan Workers Confederation (PWC) in a communication dated 21 November 2011 referring to the legislative issues raised by the Committee below.

Legislative issues

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted that the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2008 (which was an interim legislation) had lapsed and that the Government had enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces. In this respect, the Committee expressed the hope that any new legislation, whether at the provincial or national levels would be adopted in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that such instruments would be in full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the November 2011 conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) in Case No. 2799 (362nd Report) where the latter noted that a new Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) was promulgated by the President of Pakistan in July 2011 following tripartite consultations. The CFA also noted the Government’s indication that on 12 October 2011, the IRO was introduced to the National Assembly in order to make it into an Act of Parliament.

The Committee notes that the IRO, 2011, regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federation of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments which cover more than one province (section 1(2) and (3)). It notes with regret that most of its previous comments on the IRA, 2008, have not been addressed by the promulgation of the IRO, 2011.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee notes that the IRO excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application:

• – workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with, or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Factory Ordinance maintained by the federal Government (section 1(3)(a));
• -workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)) ;
• -members of the security staff of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) or drawing wages in pay group not lower than Group V in the PIAC establishment (section 1(3)(c));
• -workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d));
• -workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e));
• -agricultural workers (section 1(3) read together with section 2(x) and (xvii));
• -workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with section 2(x) and (xvii)).

The Committee recalls that by virtue of Article 2 of the Convention, workers, without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to further and defend their social, economic and occupational interests.

Managerial employees. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 31(2) of the IRO, an employer may require that a person, upon his or her appointment or promotion to a managerial position, shall cease to be and shall be disqualified from being a member or an officer of a trade union. The Committee considers that such restriction is compatible with freedom of association provided that two conditions are met: first, that the persons concerned have the right to establish their own organizations to defend their interests; and second, that the category of managerial staff is not so broadly defined as to weaken the organization of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provision is not applied in practice in a manner contrary to the principle above.

Rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that section 8(2)(a) of the IRO provides that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same industry may be registered. The Committee recalls that such restrictions may be applied to first level organizations, on condition that these organizations are free to establish inter-professional organizations, and to join federations and confederations in the form and manner deemed most appropriate by the workers or employers concerned (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 84). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that trade unions affiliating workers of different professions and/or enterprises could establish inter-professional organizations of workers and affiliate with federations and confederation of their own choosing.

The Committee further notes that section 62(3) of the IRO provides that after the certification of a collective bargaining unit, no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such a unit. The Committee considers that while a provision requiring certification of a collective bargaining agent for a corresponding bargaining unit is not contrary to the Convention, workers’ right to establish and join trade union organizations of their own choosing implies the possibility to create – if the workers so choose – more than one organization per bargaining unit. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that pursuant to section 8(2)(b) of the IRO, no other trade union is entitled to registration if there are already two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which that trade union is connected, unless it has, as members, not less than 20 per cent of the workers employed in that establishment, group of establishments or industry. Considering that this minimum membership requirement is too high, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that it is reduced to a reasonable level and that no distinction as to the minimum membership requirement is made between the first two or more registered trade unions and the newly created unions.

The Committee notes that under the new IRO, the right to represent workers in any proceedings, the right to check-off facilities and the right to call a strike are granted only to collective bargaining agents, i.e. the most representative trade unions (sections 20(b) and (c), 22, 33, 35 and 65(1)). The Committee considers that workers’ freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or in practice, in the granting of privileges extending beyond that of priority in representation for such purposes as collective bargaining or consultation by the Government or for the purpose of nominating delegations to international bodies. In other words, this distinction should not have the effect of unduly influencing the choice of organization by workers and of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to ensure that the abovementioned rights are extended to all trade unions.

Article 3. Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee notes that the IRO contains several sections concerning disqualification from holding a trade union office. First, under section 18, a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more for an offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code shall be disqualified from being elected as, or from being an officer of a trade union, unless a period of five years has elapsed after the completion of the sentence. The Committee recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120). Second, under section 44(10), the National Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) has the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike (this point is further discussed below). Third, the same sanction is also provided for in section 67(5) of the IRO for committing an unfair labour practice under section 32(1)(a)–(c) and (e). The Committee notes that section 32 lists a wide range of actions, which include acts by a worker to persuade other workers to join or refrain from joining a trade union during working hours; induce any person to refrain from becoming members or officers of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage for such persons; commence, continue, instigate or incite others to take part in, or expend or supply money to, or otherwise act in furtherance or support of, an illegal strike or a work slowdown, etc. The Committee recalls that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to bring it into accordance with the principles above.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that a bill to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 had been submitted to the Senate. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the Conference Committee that the Federal Cabinet at its meeting held on 1 May 2010 approved the repeal of this provision and that the final legislation is under preparation. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that section 8 of the IRO regulates in detail the internal functioning of trade unions. Specifically, its subsection 1(j) provides that the constitution of a union should provide for a term for which a trade union officer may be elected and specifies that it should not exceed two years; and subsection 1(l) provides for the frequency of meetings of a union’s executive and general body. The Committee further notes that under section 48(2) of the IRO, the Commission has a power to order a person who has been expelled from a trade union to be restored to its membership or to order that he or she be paid out of the union funds such sum by way of compensation or damages as the Commission thinks just. The Committee considers that all of these matters should be left for an organization to decide and regulate. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the IRO in this respect.

The Committee notes that section 5(d) of the IRO confers on the Registrar the power to inspect the accounts and records of a registered trade union, or investigate or hold such inquiry into the affairs of a trade union as he or she deems fit. The Committee considers that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect such accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 126). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the supervision of internal administration of organizations is limited to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law, which itself should not infringe the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee notes that section 65(2) and (3) of the IRO provides that “no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Ordinance” and that representation is possible in the proceedings before the Commission, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the Commission or the arbitrator, as the case may be. The Committee considers that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to ensure that workers and employers’ organizations are allowed to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceedings should they so desire.

Right to strike. Types of strike action. The Committee notes that under section 32(1)(e) of the IRO, a go-slow appears to be an unfair labour practice. The Committee is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action (including go-slow) can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 173). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the IRO so as to ensure that a peaceful work slowdown is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice.

Prohibition of strikes. The Committee notes that section 42(3) of the IRO provides that, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the Government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that a strike can also be prohibited at any time before the expiry of 30 days if it “is satisfied that the continuance of such a strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”. The Committee further notes that under section 45 of the IRO, the Government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute of national importance (subsection (1)(a)), or in respect of any public utility services (subsection (1)(b)), at any time before or after its commencement. A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section, as well as section 42 noted above, is deemed illegal by virtue of section 43(1)(c). The Committee notes that Schedule I, setting out the list of public utility services includes services such as oil production, postal services, railways and airways. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (1) in the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in the event of an acute national or local emergency; or (3) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee considers that the wording of sections 42(3) and 45(1) (a) is too broad and vague to be limited to such cases and that the abovementioned services listed in Schedule I cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the IRO so as to ensure that any prohibition or restriction imposed on the right to strike is in conformity with the principles above.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that following a prohibition of the strike by the Government pursuant to the above-noted sections 42 and 45 of the IRO, the dispute is referred to the Commission for adjudication. The Committee further notes that section 42(2) of the IRO authorizes a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, to apply to the Commission for adjudication of the dispute. Pending adjudication, the Commission can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 61). The Committee recalls that a provision, which permits public authorities or either party to unilaterally request the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such a system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only in cases where the exercise of the strike can be restricted or even prohibited or at the request of both parties to the dispute.

Sanctions. The Committee notes that under section 32(1)(e) of the IRO, commencing, continuing, instigating others to take part in, or expending or supplying money to, or otherwise acting in furtherance or support of an illegal strike or a go-slow is an unfair labour practice punishable by a fine of up to 30,000 rupees and/or imprisonment which may extend to 30 days. When the person convicted of such an offence is a trade union office bearer, he or she can be disqualified from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms, in addition to any other punishment which the court might award (section 67(4) and (5)). The Committee further notes that section 44(10) of the IRO provides for the following sanctions for contravening a Commission’s order to call off a strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; and debarring of trade union officers from holding a trade union office for the unexpired and immediately following terms. The Committee emphasizes that sanctions for strike action can be imposed only if the prohibitions or restrictions on the right to strike are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further considers that the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers and cancellation of trade union registration implies a grave risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association. With regard to penal sanctions, the Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and on no account should measures of imprisonment be imposed. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principles above.

Article 4. Dissolution of organizations. The Committee notes with concern the numerous cases where a registration of union may be cancelled under the IRO. In particular, the Committee notes that the registration of a trade union shall be cancelled if the Commission so directs, following a complaint made by the Registrar that the trade union has contravened the provisions of the Ordinance or its constitution, or failed to submit its annual returns to the Registrar, or obtained less than 10 percent of total votes polled in an election for determination of a collective bargaining agent (section 11(1)(a), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the IRO). The Committee also notes that under section 16(5) of the IRO, if the statement of expenditure of a union is found incorrect following an audit of annual return, the Registrar shall initiate before the Commission the proceeding for the cancellation of the union registration. The Committee further notes that under section 44(10) of the IRO, the registration of a trade union can be cancelled for contravening the Commission’s order to call off a strike. Furthermore, the Committee notes that under section 11(5) of the IRO, if a person who is disqualified under section 18 a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more for committing an offence involving moral turpitude under the Pakistan Penal Code) is elected to be an officer of a registered trade union, the registration of such a union shall be cancelled if the Commission so directs. The Committee recalls that the cancellation of a registration of an organization and its dissolution in view of its serious and far-reaching consequences is a measure which should occur only in extremely serious cases. With regard to section 11(5), the Committee furthermore considers that, although the conviction for an act, the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention taking into account the principles above.

The Committee notes that under the IRO, the Commissions’ decision directing the Registrar to cancel the registration of a union cannot be appealed in court (section 59 of the IRO). The Committee recalls that cancellation of a trade unions’ registration should only be possible through judicial channels and that measures of suspension or dissolution by the administrative authority constitute serious infringements of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further emphasizes that judges should be able to deal with the substance of a case to enable them to decide whether or not the measure of dissolution would not be in violation of the rights accorded to occupational organizations by Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the IRO so as to ensure that any decision to cancel trade union registration can be appealed in court.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, or a copy thereof if they have been adopted.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken rapidly to bring its national legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide with its next report copies of all other provincial laws regulating industrial relations and trade union rights at the provincial level.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amended the Anti Terrorism Act by penalizing illegal strikes or slowdowns with up to seven years of imprisonment, had been repealed. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the Conference Committee that the Ordinance is no longer in force.

The Committee notes the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (PIRA), 2010. The Committee regrets that this legislation appears to restrict the rights of workers to organize by excluding several categories of workers from its scope of application, and restricting the rights of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization and their right to strike. The Committee will examine the PIRA, 2010, in detail in the framework of the next reporting cycle.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the All Pakistan Federation of United Trade Unions (APFUTU) dated 8 March 2010 regarding the difficulties in registering trade unions for the industries established in the City of Sialkot, as well as the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 concerning acts of violence against protesters, night‑time raids, arrests and harassment against trade union leaders and members, as well as other violations of the Convention. The Committee notes in particular the comments of the ITUC concerning the requirement that any gathering of more than four people be subject to police authorization and its impact on trade union activities, as well as the denial of the right to strike to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) and the possibility to impose penalties of imprisonment against illegal strikes, go-slows and picketing activities. The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of workers’ organizations, and that workers have the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on all these matters in its next report.

The Committee also notes the comments made by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) dated 30 July 2010 concerning the legal vacuum with regard to the regulation of industrial relations as the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) of 2008 expired on 30 April 2010, in particular as concerns national industry-wide trade unions. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that it has enacted the 18th Amendment to the Constitution whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions are devolved to the provinces. The Government adds that it will ensure that provincial legislations will be in accordance with the Convention. The Committee further notes that on 18 June 2010, the High Court of Sindh (Karachi), referring to the 18th Constitutional Amendment, confirmed that the IRA 2008 stood repealed and concluded that the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969 was now once again in force. The Committee recalls in this respect that it had previously commented on a number of significant restrictions on the right to organize under the IRO 1969 and in particular: (i) the exclusion from the IRO of public servants of grade 16 and above, of forestry, railway and hospital workers, of agricultural workers like self-employed farmers, sharecroppers and smallholders, as well as of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceeded 800 rupees per month (far below the national minimum wage); and (ii) restrictions on the rights to strike. The Committee notes that while some provincial governments have moved to pass their own legislation based on the expired IRA 2008, it expresses its concern over the exercise of their rights by national industry-wide trade unions, the activities of which may be jeopardized in the absence of a national legislation dealing with industrial relations and trade union rights.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that new legislation will be adopted in the country in the very near future with the full consultation of the social partners concerned. The Committee further hopes that any adopted legislation will be in full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the developments with regard to the adoption of national and/or provincial legislations on trade unions and industrial relations and to provide a copy of these instruments once adopted. It reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Export processing zones (EPZs). With regard to the right to organize in EPZs, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and will be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. Noting the Government’s statement that the draft Rules are in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their adoption, as well as a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Banking sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee noted the Government’s statement that a bill to repeal section 27‑B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 was submitted to the Senate. The Committee notes that the Government provides, with its report, a copy of the amendment submitted to the Senate and indicates that, as underlined in its Labour Policy 2010, it is committed to repeal this section. The Committee notes in this respect the conclusions of Case No. 2096 of the Committee on Freedom of Association in which it has been requesting amendment of this Ordinance for many years. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Amendment of section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

Furthermore, recalling that Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing illegal strikes or slowdowns with up to seven years’ imprisonment, would be contrary to the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether this Ordinance is still in force.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the comments made by the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in communications dated 2 and 26 August 2009 respectively. The Committee further notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2096, 2399, 2520 (see 353rd Report) and 2229 (see 354th Report), dealing with the same issues.

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been commenting on important restrictions to the right to organize of certain categories of workers and to the right of trade unions to formulate their programmes, elect their officers and carry out their activities without interference by the public authorities. At its 2008 session, the Committee took note of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), adopted in November 2008, which amended the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. It further noted that the IRA was an interim law due to lapse on 30 April 2010. The Committee noted that during this period, a tripartite conference would be held to draft new legislation in consultation with all stakeholders.

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009. It further notes that the Conference Committee expressed the firm hope that new legislation would be adopted in the very near future with the full consultation of the social partners concerned and that it would guarantee the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to form and join organization to defend their social and occupational interests and to organize their activities and elect their officers freely and without interference.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had requested the Government to ensure full freedom of association at the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) and the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that trade union activities were restored at both undertakings. With regard to the PIAC, the Government indicated that Chief Executive Order No. 6 was repealed by Parliament.

The Committee notes that the IRA excludes the following categories of workers from its scope of application:

–      workers employed in services or installations exclusively connected with or incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan, including the Ordnance Factory maintained by the federal Government (section 1(3)(a));

–      workers employed in the administration of the State (section 1(3)(b));

–      members of the security staff of PIAC (section 1(3)(b));

–      workers employed by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited (section 1(3)(d));

–      workers employed by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis (section 1(3)(e));

–      members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery, an airport or a seaport (section 1(3)(f));

–      members of the security or fire service staff of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (section 1(3)(g));

–      agricultural workers (section 1(3) read together with 2(ix) and (xiv)); and

–      workers of charitable organizations (section 1(3) read together with 2(ix) and (xiv)).

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the new legislation guarantees the abovementioned categories of employees the right to form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate whether self-employed workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention.

With regard to the right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009 had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and will be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee hopes that the Rules will guarantee freedom of association rights to workers in EPZs and requests the Government to provide a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee notes that according to section 6(2) of the IRA, only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same industry may be registered. In the view of the Committee, such restrictions may be applied to first-level organizations, on condition that these organizations are free to establish inter-professional organizations, and to join federations and confederations in the form and manner deemed most appropriate by the workers or employers concerned (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 84). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that under the new legislation, trade unions affiliating workers of different professions and/or enterprises could be established.

The Committee further notes section 30(3) of the IRA according to which, after the certification of a collective bargaining unit, no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such unit. The Committee recalls that the right to establish and join unions implies the free determination of the structure and composition of unions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that under the new legislation, workers can themselves determine the composition of their unions.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to lower the requirement of the minimum trade union membership set at 25 per cent of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry. The Committee notes that under the IRA, this requirement is lowered to 20 per cent (section 6(2)(b)). Considering that this minimum membership requirement is still too high, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that it is further reduced to a reasonable level.

The Committee notes that under the IRA, the right to represent workers in any proceedings, the right to check-off facilities and the right to call a strike are granted only to collective bargaining agents, i.e. the most representative trade unions (sections 24(13)(b) and (c), 32, 41, 42 and 68(1)). The Committee considers that workers’ freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or in practice, in the granting of privileges extending beyond that of priority in representation for such purposes as collective bargaining or consultation by the Government or for the purpose of nominating delegations to international bodies. In other words, this distinction should not have the effect of unduly influencing the choice of organization by workers and of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being amongst the most representative of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that under the new legislation, the abovementioned rights are extended to all trade unions.

Article 3. Right to elect representatives freely. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a bill to repeal section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 was submitted to the Senate. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal these restrictions in the near future and requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this respect.

The Committee notes that the IRA contains several sections concerning disqualification from being an officer of a trade union. First, under section 7, a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 78 shall be disqualified from being elected as, or from being, an officer of a trade union. According to section 78, whoever contravenes, or fails to comply with, any provisions of the IRA, shall, if no other penalty is provided, be punishable with a fine which may extend to 5,000 rupees. The Committee recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120).

Second, under section 64(7), the labour court has the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike. The Committee considers that such a sanction imposed for involvement in a strike should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and in any case, should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful.

Third, the same sanction is also provided for in section 72(4) and (5) of the IRA for committing an unfair labour practice under section 18(1)(a)–(c) and (e). The Committee notes that the provisions of section 18 list a wide range of actions, which include acts by a worker to persuade other workers to join or refrain from joining a trade union during working hours; induce any person to refrain from becoming members or officers of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage for such person; commence, continue, instigate or incite others to take part on, or expend or supply money or otherwise act in furtherance or support of, an illegal strike or a work slowdown, etc. The Committee recalls that legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts, which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120).

In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the new legislation takes into account the principles above and effectively guarantees the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that section 15(d) of the IRA confers on the registrar the power to inspect the accounts and records of a registered trade union, or investigate or hold such inquiry into the affairs of a trade union as he or she deemed fit. The Committee considers that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect their accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 126). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the supervision of internal administration of organizations is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law, which itself should not infringe the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee notes that, according to section 68(2) and (3) of the IRA, “no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act” and that representation is possible in the proceedings before the labour court, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the court or the arbitrator, as the case may be. Considering that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that under the new legislation, these organizations are allowed to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceedings should they so desire.

Right to strike. The Committee notes that under section 18(1)(e) of the IRA, a work slowdown appears to be an unfair labour practice punishable by a fine which may extend up to 20,000 rupees and, in case of an office bearer, by disqualifying him or her from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately following his or her term, in addition to any other punishment which the court might award (section 72(4) and (5)). The Committee recalls that any work stoppage, however brief and limited, may generally be considered as a strike. It is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful and that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 173 and 177). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that under the new legislation, a peaceful work slowdown is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction could be imposed for participating in such an action.

The Committee notes that, according to section 48(3) of the IRA, where a strike lasts for more than 30 days, the federal or provincial government may, by an order, prohibit such a strike, provided that a strike can also be prohibited at any time before the expiry of 30 days if the Government, “is satisfied that the continuance of such strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests”. Under section 48(4), following prohibition of the strike, the dispute is referred to the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) or the labour court for adjudication. The Committee further notes that under section 49 of the IRA, the federal or provincial government can prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute of national importance (subsection (1)(a)) or in respect of any public utility services (subsection (1)(b)) at any time before or after its commencement, and refer the dispute to the NIRC or the labour court for adjudication. A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section is deemed illegal by virtue of section 63(1)(c). The Committee notes that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services includes services such as oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The Committee recalls that a prohibition of strikes can only be justified: (1) in the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in the event of an acute national emergency; or (3) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). The Committee considers that the wording of sections 48(3) and 49 (1)(a) is too broad and vague to be limited to such cases and that the abovementioned services listed in Schedule I cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that any restriction or prohibition of the right to strike is in conformity with the principles above.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years, it had been requesting the Government to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term and sanctioned persons acting in violation of the Act with imprisonment for up to one year. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee once again asks the Government to amend this Act so as to bring it into conformity with the abovementioned principle and that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to indicate any progress in this respect.

The Committee notes that section 48(2) of the IRA authorizes a “party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, to apply to the labour court for adjudication of the dispute. During this time, the labour court (or tribunal) can prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 62). The Committee recalls that a provision, which permits either party to unilaterally request the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that under the new legislation, referral of the dispute to the courts is possible only in cases where the exercise of the strike can be restricted or even prohibited (see above) or at the request of both parties to the dispute.

The Committee notes that section 64(7) of the IRA provides for the following sanctions for contravening a labour court’s order to call off a strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following. The Committee recalls in this respect that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that under the new legislation, sanctions for strike action could only be imposed where the prohibition of the strike is in conformity with the Convention and that, even in those cases, the sanctions imposed are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

Furthermore, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or slowdowns, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

Article 4. The Committee notes that the registration of a trade union shall be cancelled if the labour court so directs, following a complaint made by the registrar that the trade union has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or its constitution (section 12(1) of the IRA). The Committee also notes that under section 64(7) of the IRA, the registration of a trade union can be cancelled for contravening a labour court’s order to call off a strike. The Committee recalls that the cancellation of registration of an organization and its dissolution is a measure which should occur only in extremely serious cases. The Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. While noting that under the IRA, the registration can be cancelled only upon an order by the judicial authorities, the Committee emphasizes that judges should be able to deal with the substance of a case to enable them to decide whether or not the measure of dissolution would not be in violation of the rights accorded to occupational organizations by Convention No. 87. Furthermore, the Committee notes that under section 12(2) of the IRA, if a person who is disqualified under section 7 (a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 78 or heinous offence under the Pakistan Penal Code) is elected as an officer of a registered trade union, the registration of such a union shall be cancelled if the labour court so directs. The Committee considers that, although the conviction for an act, the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the new legislation takes into account the principles above.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that new legislation would be adopted in the very near future with the full consultation of the social partners concerned and will take into account its comments above. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the new legislation once it is adopted.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received and hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the need to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act, amending the IRO 2002, was adopted in November 2008 and that it will be an interim law, which will lapse on 30 April 2010. With reference to its observation, the Committee expresses the hope that the new legislation will take into account its previous comments with regard to the IRO 2002 and will ensure:

–      the right of workers to establish occupational or professional trade unions;

–      that the requirement of the minimum trade union membership previously set at 25 per cent of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry is lowered;

–      that subject to the internal rules of a trade union, persons who have been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or for a criminal offence of a heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., may become trade union members;

–      that the labour court no longer has the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike and for committing an unfair labour practice broadly defined under section 64(1)(d) as an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using, among others means, intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, disconnection of telephone, water or power facilities. In this respect, the Committee recalls that such a sanction should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful. The Committee further recalls that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office. Thus, legislation, which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts, which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 120);

–      that the supervision of financial activities of trade unions is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 125);

–      the right of workers’ and/or employers’ organizations to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceeding should they so desire;

–      that the right to the check-off facilities and the right to call a strike are granted to all trade unions;

–      that a peaceful go-slow action is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction may be imposed for participating in such action;

–      the right of workers’ organizations to exercise strike action in search of solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends and to have recourse to sympathy strikes without penalty;

–      that workers are not deprived of their trade union organization by cancellation of its registration due to illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders. In this respect, the Committee considered that the union members should be able to rectify the situation by electing a new trade union officer;

–      that the following grounds for cancellation of trade union registration are lifted: trade union has not been a contestant in a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent; or has not applied for determination of the collective bargaining agent within a specific period of time; or has secured less than 15 per cent of polled votes in a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent (section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IRO 2002);

–      that workers’ organizations are allowed to determine themselves whether they wish to join a federation; and

–      that the minimum requirement of ten trade unions, with at least one from each province, for establishment of a national federation is lowered.

Furthermore, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Pakistan Workers’ Federation (PWF) in communications dated 29 August and 21 September 2008, respectively. The comments of both unions concern legislative issues as well as the application of the Convention in practice raised in the previous observation of the Committee. The ITUC further alleges arrest of a number of trade union leaders. The Committee recalls that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of these organizations and it is for the governments to ensure that this principle is respected. The Committee requests that the Government provide its observations thereon, as well as on the 2005 and 2006 comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), alleging massive arrests and measures of retaliation against strikers, denial of registration of a union, limitation to the right of demonstration, harassment of women trade union leaders, suspension of a trade union and the possible use of section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings against a trade union gathering and the 2005 comments of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU). The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2229 (see 349th Report) and 2399 (see 344th and 350th Reports), dealing with the same issues.

The Committee recalls that its previous observations concerned the need to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 2002. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Act, amending the IRO 2002, was adopted in November 2008 and that it will be an interim law, which will lapse on 30 April 2010. During this period, a tripartite conference will be held to draft a new legislation in consultation with all stakeholders. The Committee expresses the hope that the new legislation will take into account its previous comments with regard to the IRO 2002.

In particular, the Committee trusts that the new legislation will guarantee the right to form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests to the following categories of workers:

–      managerial and supervisory staff;

–      workers who were excluded by virtue of section 1(4) of the IRO 2002, namely workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan including the Ministry of Defence lines of the railways; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the railways, post, telegraph and telephone departments; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport;

–      workers of charitable organizations;

–      workers at the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC);

–      workers at Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) (Chief Executive’s Order No. 6);

–      agricultural workers; and

–      export processing zone (EPZ) workers.

The Committee further trusts that, under the new legislation, the following restrictions on the right to strike will be lifted:

–      the possibility to impose compulsory arbitration at the request of one party to end a strike action (reference is made to sections 31(2) and 37(1) of the IRO 2002). In this respect, the Committee recalls that a provision, which permits either party unilaterally to request the intervention of the public authorities for the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such a system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 153);

–      the right of the federal or provincial Government to prohibit a strike which had lasted for more than 15 days at any time before the expiry of 30 days, “if it was satisfied that the continuance of such strike was causing serious hardship to the community or was prejudicial to the national interests” and to prohibit the strike if it considered that it “was detrimental to the interests of the community at large”. In this respect, the Committee recalls that prohibitions or restrictions of the right to strike should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to situations of an acute national crisis. The Committee had previously considered that the wording above, as previously provided for in section 31 of the IRO 2002, was too broad and vague to be limited to such cases;

–      sanctions previously imposed by section 39(7) for contravening a labour court’s order to call off a strike (dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following). In this respect, the Committee recalls that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). More specifically, the Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new legislation once it is adopted.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it had noted that under section 32 of the IRO 2002, the federal or provincial Government could prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement, and refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators for compulsory arbitration and that a strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section was deemed illegal. The Committee had also noted that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services included services which could not be considered essential in the strict sense of the term – oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The Schedule also mentioned watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment. Furthermore, for a number of years, the Committee had been requesting the Government to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. Considering that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend the Essential Services Act so as to ensure that workers employed in oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports may have recourse to strike action and so that compulsory arbitration may only be applied in these cases at the request of both parties. The Committee recalls that, rather than imposing a prohibition on strikes, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of negotiated minimum service of public utilities. Considering the heavy penal sanctions linked to violation of the Essential Services Act, the Committee further asks the Government to amend this Act so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also requests that the Government specify the categories of workers employed in the “watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment”.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 – which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment – were under way. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the progress made in repealing these restrictions, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company.

The Committee is addressing a direct request on other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee once again asks the Government to:

–         indicate whether occupational or professional trade unions could be established (it appears from section 6(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (IRO), that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same establishment or industry may be registered);

–         lower the requirement of the minimum trade union membership set at 25 per cent of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry (section 6(2));

–         extend the right to the check-off facilities and the right to call a strike to all trade unions (under sections 20(13)(b) and (c), 21, 43(1) and 56(1), these rights are granted only to the collective bargaining agent, i.e. the most representative trade union) and to indicate whether minority unions may represent their members in respect of individual grievances; and

–         repeal section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IRO, which allow dissolution of the trade union by the Registrar.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, persons who have been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of a heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc. (section 7 of the IRO), are prohibited from becoming trade union members. The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all workers without distinction and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 7 of the IRO.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in respect of the abovementioned points.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee had previously noted that, under section 39(7) of the IRO, the labour court had the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike. Considering that such a sanction should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful, the Committee asks the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend section 39(7) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee had further noted that the same sanction was also provided for in section 65(5) for committing an unfair labour practice broadly defined under section 64(1)(d) as an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using, among others means, intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, disconnection of telephone, water or power facilities. The Committee once again recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office. Thus, legislation, which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts, which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 120). As the penalty provided under section 65(5) of the IRO could potentially run counter to the right of workers to elect their representatives freely, since this section seems to cover a wide range of conduct – some of which is of a criminal nature, while other acts might not necessarily render the persons found guilty inappropriate for holding trade union office – the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which section 64(1)(d) is to be interpreted and, more particularly, the wording “an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using pressure and other such means”. It further requests that the Government keep it informed of any practical application of this provision.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted section 19(1) of the IRO, which provided that accounts maintained by the collective bargaining agent with a membership of 5,000 or more were subject to an external audit by a firm of accountants appointed by the Registrar. In cases when the collective bargaining agent had a membership of less than 5,000, the accounts were subject to audit in the manner “as may be prescribed”. In a previous direct request, the Committee had also noted that section 58(d) conferred to the Registrar a power to inspect the accounts and records of the registered trade unions, investigate or hold such inquiry as he or she deemed fit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has recommended to Parliament that only the accounts of collective bargaining agents having a membership of 10,000 or more would be subjected to an external audit. The Committee considers that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect their accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 125). The Committee hopes that sections 19(1) and 58(d) of the IRO will be amended in the near future so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention and requests that the Government keep it informed of the progress made in this respect.

The Committee had also noted section 20(14) of the IRO, concerning collective bargaining agents, which provided that “the registrar may authorize in writing an office bearer to perform all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereafter”. Recalling that the authorities should exercise great restraint in relation to the intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify the meaning of this section. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 20(14) is only used in case of holding referendum and election proceedings of trade unions. The Government adds that when there is a referendum in a large establishment and the trade unions have inter-city or inter-provincial memberships, the registrar has to notify the officers subordinated to him to exercise the powers of registrar under section 20(14) of the Ordinance to hold proceedings for determination of the collective bargaining agent for the said establishment.

Furthermore, the Committee had noted that, according to section 43(2) and (3) of the IRO, “no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings” and representation was possible in the proceedings before the labour court, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the court or the arbitrator, as the case may be. Considering that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 43 so as to allow these organizations to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceeding should they so desire and keep it informed of the measures.

(c) Right to strike. The Committee had previously noted that go-slow measures were forbidden under section 64(1)(f) and in the definition of “strike” provided for in section 2(xxviii). Go-slow was punishable by a fine which may extend up to 30,000 rupees and, in case of an office bearer, by disqualifying him or her from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately following his or her term, in addition to any other punishment which the court might award (section 65(4) and (5)). The Committee once again recalls that any work stoppage, however brief and limited, may generally be considered as a strike. It is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful and that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 173 and 177). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful go-slow action is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction may be imposed for a participating in such action.

The Committee further requests that the Government indicate whether workers’ organizations may exercise strike action in search of solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends and whether workers may have recourse to sympathy strikes without penalty.

Furthermore, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

Articles 2 and 4. The Committee had previously noted that under section 12(2), contravention of section 7, which prohibited a person who has been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming a trade union office bearer, was a ground for cancellation of trade union registration by the labour court. The Committee considers that, although the conviction for an act, the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to amend this provision so as to enable the union members to rectify the situation by electing a new trade union officer.

Articles 2 and 5. Right of organization to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee had previously raised concerns over the following sections of the IRO.

–         Section 3(1)(d), according to which every collective bargaining agent was required to affiliate with a federation at the national level registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission within two months after it was certified as collective bargaining agent or after the promulgation of the IRO.

–         Section 18(1), according to which any ten or more trade unions, with at least one from each province, might constitute a federation or confederation at the national level.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the progress made in amending the abovementioned sections.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006, referring to issues already raised, and alleging massive arrests and measures of retaliation against strikers, denial of registration of a union, limitation to the right of demonstration, harassment of women trade union leaders, suspension of trade union and the possible use of section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings against a trade union gathering. The Committee recalls that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against leaders and members of these organizations and it is for the governments to ensure that this principle is respected. The Committee requests that the Government provide its observations on all these comments as well as on the comments of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) and the ICFTU dated 14 May and 31 August 2005, respectively, mentioned in its 2005 observation.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it addressed the following matters.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend its legislation or to adopt specific legislation so as to ensure that the following employees enjoyed the right to form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests:

–      managerial and supervisory staff (sections 2(xxx) and 63(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO));

–      workers excluded by virtue of section 1(4) of the IRO, namely workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan including the Ministry of Defence lines of the railways; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the railways, post, telegraph and telephone departments; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institution established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport;

–      workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii) of the IRO, 2002);

–      workers at the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC);

–      workers in the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) (Chief Executive’s Order No. 6);

–      agricultural workers; and

–      export processing zones workers.

The Committee once again emphasizes that all workers, with only the possible exception of the police and armed forces, should enjoy the right to establish and join trade unions. Noting the Government’s indication that the draft amendment of the IRO has been submitted to the Cabinet for approval before being sent to Parliament, the Committee requests that the Government indicate in its next report the progress made in amending the IRO of 2002, and to provide a copy of the draft amendment thereof so that it could examine their conformity with the Convention. It further asks the Government to take without delay the necessary measures to restore full trade union rights to the KESC and the PIA workers and to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requests that the Government indicate in its next report the progress made in framing labour legislation to ensure the rights under the Convention to workers in the agricultural sector and EPZs and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that measures to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 were under way. While noting that the measures taken to review and ultimately reform section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 are under way, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal these restrictions in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(b) Right to strike. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that the federal or provincial Government could prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement, and refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators for compulsory arbitration (section 32 of the IRO). A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section was deemed illegal by virtue of section 38(1)(c). The Committee noted that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services included services which could not be considered essential in the strict sense of the term – oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The schedule also mentioned watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment. Furthermore, for a number of years, the Committee had been requesting the Government to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term.

Considering that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend the legislation so as to ensure that workers employed in oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports may have recourse to strike action and so that compulsory arbitration may only be applied in these cases at the request of both parties. The Committee recalls that, rather than imposing a prohibition on strikes, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of negotiated minimum service of public utilities. Considering the heavy penal sanctions linked to violation of the Essential Services Act, the Committee further asks the Government to amend this Act so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also requests that the Government specify the categories of workers employed in the “watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment”.

The Committee had noted that section 31(2) of the IRO authorized “the party raising a dispute”, either before or after the commencement of a strike, to apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. During this time, the Labour Court (or Appellate Court) could prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 37(1)). The Committee once again recalls that a provision, which permits either party unilaterally to request the intervention of the public authorities for the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests that the Government indicate the measures taken to amend section 31(2) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee had further noted that, according to section 31(3) of the IRO, where a strike lasts for more than 15 days, the federal or provincial Government can prohibit the strike at any time before the expiry of 30 days, “if it was satisfied that the continuance of such strike was causing serious hardship to the community or was prejudicial to the national interests” and should prohibit the strike if it considered that it “was detrimental to the interests of the community at large”. The Committee had further noted that, under section 31(4), following prohibition of the strike, the dispute is referred to the commission or to the labour court for compulsory arbitration. Recalling that prohibitions or restrictions of the right to strike should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to situations of an acute national crisis, and considering that the wording in section 31 is too broad and vague to be limited to such cases, the Committee asks the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. It requests that the Government keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee had also noted that section 39(7) provided for the following sanctions for contravening a labour court’s order to call off a strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following. The Committee once again recalls in this respect that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). More specifically, the Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 39(7) of the IRO so as to ensure that sanctions for strike action may only be imposed where the prohibition of the strike is in conformity with the Convention and that, even in those cases, the sanctions imposed are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee addresses a direct request on other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It regrets that no information was provided by the Government in respect of the following matters previously raised by the Committee.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee once again asks the Government to:

-  specify whether the persons who have been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc. (section 7 of the IRO of 2002), were indeed prohibited from becoming trade union members or whether this section was limited to prohibiting their membership on trade union executive boards;

-  indicate whether occupational or professional trade unions could be established (it appears from section 6(2)(a) of the IRO that only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same establishment or industry may be registered);

-  lower the requirement of the minimum trade union membership set at 25 per cent of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry (section 6(2));

-  extend the right to the check-off facilities and the right to call a strike to all trade unions (under sections 20(13)(b) and (c), 21, 43(1) and 56(1), these rights are granted only to the collective bargaining agent, i.e. the most representative trade union) and to indicate whether minority unions may represent their members in respect of individual grievances; and

-  repeal section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IRO, which allow dissolution of the trade union by the Registrar.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in respect of the abovementioned points.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee had previously noted that under section 39(7) of the IRO, the labour court had the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike. Considering that such a sanction should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 39(7) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee had further noted that the same sanction was also provided for in section 65(5) for committing an unfair labour practice broadly defined under section 64(1)(d) as an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using, among others means, intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, disconnection of telephone, water or power facilities. The Committee once again recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office. Thus, legislation, which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts, which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 120). As the penalty provided under section 65(5) of the IRO could potentially run counter to the right of workers to elect their representatives freely, since this section seems to cover a wide range of conduct - some of which is of a criminal nature, while other acts might not necessarily render the persons found guilty inappropriate for holding trade union office - the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which section 64(1)(d) is to be interpreted and, more particularly, the wording "an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using pressure and other such means". It further requests that the Government keep it informed of any practical application of this provision.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted section 19(1) of the IRO, which provided that accounts maintained by the collective bargaining agent with a membership of 5,000 or more were subject to an external audit by a firm of accountants appointed by the Registrar. In cases when the collective bargaining agent had a membership of less than 5,000, the accounts were subject to audit in the manner "as may be prescribed". In this respect, the Committee notes the information provided by Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association according to which, the Government had proposed to amend the law so as to give the right of choice of an auditor to trade unions. The Government indicated that only the accounts of collective bargaining agents having a membership of 10,000 or more would be subject to an external audit (see Case No. 2229, 338th Report, November 2005). In its previous direct request, the Committee had also noted that section 58(d) conferred to the Registrar a power to inspect the accounts and records of the registered trade unions, investigate or hold such inquiry as he or she deemed fit. The Committee considers that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect their accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 125). The Committee hopes that sections 19(1) and 58(d) of the IRO will be amended in the near future so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention and requests that the Government keep it informed of the progress made in this respect.

The Committee had also noted section 20(14) of the IRO, concerning collective bargaining agents, which provided that "the registrar may authorize in writing an office bearer to perform all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereafter". Recalling that the authorities should exercise great restraint in relation to the intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the meaning of this section and, in particular, whether it means that union officers may be restricted in their functions by the Registrar.

Furthermore, the Committee had noted that, according to section 43(2) and (3) of the IRO, "no party to an industrial dispute should be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings" and representation was possible in the proceedings before the labour court, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the court or the arbitrator, as the case may be. Considering that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 43 so as to allow these organizations to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceeding should they so desire and keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

(c) Right to strike. The Committee had previously noted that go-slow measures were forbidden under section 64(1)(f) and in the definition of "strike" provided for in section 2(xxviii). Go-slow was punishable by a fine which may extend up to 30,000 rupees and, in case of an office bearer, by disqualifying him or her from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately following his or her term, in addition to any other punishment which the Court might award (section 65(4) and (5)). The Committee once again recalls that any work stoppage, however brief and limited, may generally be considered as a strike. It is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful and that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 173 and 177). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful go-slow action is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction may be imposed for a participating in such action.

The Committee further requests that the Government indicate whether workers’ organizations may exercise strike action in search of solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends and whether workers may have recourse to sympathy strikes without penalty.

Furthermore, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

Articles 2 and 4. The Committee had previously noted that under section 12(2), contravention of section 7, which prohibited a person who has been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming a trade union office bearer, was a ground for cancellation of trade union registration by the labour court. The Committee considers that, although the conviction for an act, the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to amend this provision so as to enable the union members to rectify the situation by electing a new trade union officer.

Articles 2 and 5. Right of organization to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee had previously raised concerned over the following sections of the IRO of 2002:

-  section 3(1)(d), according to which, every collective bargaining agent was required to affiliate with a federation at the national level registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission within two months after it was certified as collective bargaining agent or after the promulgation of the IRO; and

-  section 18(1), according to which, any ten or more trade unions, with at least one from each province, might constitute a federation or confederation at the national level.

The Committee notes in this respect the information submitted by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 2229, op. cit.). According to the Government, it was in the process of amending its legislation. As concerns section 18(1), the Government indicated that the number requirement was four, one from each province. The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the progress made in amending the abovementioned sections.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2229 (see 338th Report, November 2005). The Committee further notes the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in communications dated 14 May and 31 August 2005, respectively, concerning the application of the Convention. The comments of both unions concern legislative issues raised in the previous observation of the Committee as well as the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests that the Government provide its observations thereon.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend its legislation or to adopt specific legislation so as to ensure that the following employees enjoyed the right to form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests:

-  managerial and supervisory staff (sections 2(xxx) and 63(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO));

-  workers excluded by virtue of section 1(4) of the IRO, namely workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan including the Ministry of Defence lines of the railways; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the railways, post, telegraph and telephone departments; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institution established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport;

-  workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii) of the IRO, 2002);

-  workers at the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC);

-  workers in the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) (Chief Executive’s Order No. 6);

-  agricultural workers; and

-  export processing zones workers.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the right of managerial staff to form associations to defend their interests is guaranteed by the Constitution. As concerns other exclusions provided for in the IRO of 2002, the Government indicates that it has sent the draft amendments of the IRO to the Prime Minister Secretariat for approval before their promulgation. With regard to the KESC, the Government indicates that the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) issued an order to the effect that the IRO of 2002, was not applicable to the KESC. The Trade Union of the KESC has appealed to the Bench of the NIRC and the matter was still pending. The Committee notes, however, that in Case No. 2006, pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government invoked economic interests to explain suspension of trade union rights at the KESC. In respect to Chief Executive’s Order No. 6, which abolished trade union rights of the workers in the PIA, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the case of the trade unions affected by the Order is still pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. No information was provided by the Government on the progress made in developing legislation to ensure trade union rights of agricultural and EPZ workers.

In the light of the above, the Committee once again emphasizes that all workers, with only the possible exception of police and armed forces, should enjoy the right to establish and join trade unions. It requests that the Government indicate in its next report the progress made in amending the IRO of 2002, and to provide a copy of the draft amendment thereof so that it could examine their conformity with the Convention. It further asks the Government to take without delay the necessary measures to restore full trade union rights to the KESC and the PIA workers and to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requests that the Government indicate in its next report the progress made in framing labour legislation to ensure the rights under the Convention to workers in the agricultural sector and EPZs and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting, as candidates, persons who have been previously employed in the banking company. The Committee regrets that no measures were taken by the Government in this respect and urges it to amend the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, so as to bring it into full conformity with Convention No. 87. It requests that the Government keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

(b) Right to strike. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that the federal or provincial government could prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility services, at any time before or after its commencement, and refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators for compulsory arbitration (section 32 of the IRO). A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section was deemed illegal by virtue of section 38(1)(c). The Committee noted that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services included services which could not be considered essential in the strict sense of the term - oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The schedule also mentioned watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment. Furthermore, for a number of years, the Committee had been requesting the Government to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the provisions of the Essential Services Act, 1952, are applied very restrictively keeping in view national interests and serious hardship to the community. The Government explains that Pakistan is on the front line of the war against terrorism and that, in retaliation, some unscrupulous elements try to disrupt the supply chain of oil and natural gas, to paralyse the whole economy of the country. In such situations, the Government has to take decisive action to prevent any interruptions, which would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or a part of the population.

Considering that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend the legislation so as to ensure that workers employed in oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports may have recourse to strike action and so that compulsory arbitration may only be applied in these cases at the request of both parties. The Committee recalls that rather than imposing a prohibition on strikes, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of negotiated minimum service of public utilities. Considering the heavy penal sanctions linked to violation of the Essential Services Act, the Committee further asks the Government to amend this Act so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also requests that the Government specify the categories of workers employed in the "watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment".

The Committee had noted that section 31(2) of the IRO authorized "the party raising a dispute", either before or after the commencement of a strike, to apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. During this time, the Labour Court (or Appellate Court) could prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 37(1)). The Committee once again recalls that a provision, which permits either party unilaterally to request the intervention of the public authorities for the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to strike by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests that the Government indicate the measures taken to amend section 31(2) so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee had further noted that according to section 31(3) of the IRO, where a strike lasted for more than 15 days, the federal or provincial government could prohibit the strike at any time before the expiry of 30 days, "if it was satisfied that the continuance of such strike was causing serious hardship to the community or was prejudicial to the national interests" and should prohibit the strike if it considered that it "was detrimental to the interests of the community at large". The Committee had further noted that under section 31(4), following prohibition of the strike, the dispute was referred to the commission or to the labour court for compulsory arbitration. Recalling that prohibitions or restrictions of the right to strike should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to situations of an acute national crisis, and considering that the wording in section 31 is too broad and vague to be limited to such cases, the Committee asks the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. It requests that the Government keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee had also noted that section 39(7) provided for the following sanctions for contravening a labour court’s order to call off the strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following. The Committee once again recalls in this respect that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). More specifically, the Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to amend section 39(7) of the IRO so as to ensure that sanctions for strike action may only be imposed where the prohibition of the strike is in conformity with the Convention and that, even in those cases, the sanctions imposed are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee addresses a request on other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. (a) Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that the definition of the term "industry" (section 2(xvii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969) excludes workers of charitable organizations "operating through public or private donations where ‘charitable purpose’ includes provision of education, medical care, emergency relief and other needs of the poor and indigent". Recalling that all workers, with only the exception of the members of the police and the armed forces, should enjoy the right to establish and join trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers of charitable organizations enjoy the rights to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee further notes section 7 of the IRO which appears to disqualify persons who have been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming members or office bearers of a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether the persons mentioned in section 7 are indeed prohibited from becoming trade union members or whether this section is limited to prohibiting their membership on trade union executive boards.

(b) Right to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that according to section 6(2)(a) of the IRO, only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same establishment or industry may be registered. Recalling that under Article 2 of the Convention workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing, including organizations grouping together workers from different workplaces or industries but with the same trade (for example, plumbers), the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether occupational or professional trade unions may also be registered.

The Committee also notes that under section 6(2) of the IRO, the minimum membership requirement was raised from 20 to 25 per cent. The Committee recalls that although a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 81). The Committee considers that the minimum membership requirement set at 25 per cent of the total number of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to lower it.

The Committee further notes that the IRO grants to the collective bargaining agent, i.e. the most representative trade union, rights which go beyond collective bargaining. According to section 20(13)(b), the collective bargaining agent has the exclusive right to represent all or any of the workers in any proceedings. Section 43(1) is to the same effect. By virtue of sections 20(13)(c) and 56(1), the collective bargaining agent has the further exclusive right to call a strike. The right to check-off facilities is also reserved for the collective bargaining agent under section 21. The Committee recalls in this respect that the workers’ freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or in practice, in the granting of privileges such as to influence unduly the choice of organization by workers. Therefore, the distinction between the most representative organization and other organizations should not have the effect of depriving the minority unions of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, representing them in individual grievances) and for organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes as provided by the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 98). The Committee therefore asks the Government to amend its legislation so as to extend the right to the check-off facilities and the right to call a strike to all trade unions, accompanied by any reasonable prerequisites. It further requests the Government to indicate whether minority unions may represent their members should they so desire, in respect of individual grievances.

The Committee further notes that trade union registration may be cancelled by the registrar on the grounds that a trade union has not been a contestant in a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent (section 12(3)(ii)); or has not applied for determination of the collective bargaining agent under section 20(2) within two months of its registration as another union or promulgation of the Ordinance, whichever is earlier, provided there does not already exist a collective bargaining agent determined under section 20(11) in an establishment, or group of establishments or industry (section 12(3)(iii)); or has secured less than 15 per cent of polled votes per final list of voters, during a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent (section 12(3)(iv)). The Committee considers that the provisions contained in section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv), which allow dissolution of the trade union, prevent workers from maintaining their membership and pursuing their activities in the trade union of their own choosing and therefore are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to repeal section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IRO.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee notes that under section 39(7) of the IRO, the Labour Court has the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike. The Committee considers that such a sanction should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee further notes that the same sanction is also provided for in section 65(5) for committing an unfair labour practice broadly defined under section 64(1)(d) as an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using, among others means, intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, disconnection of telephone, water or power facilities. The Committee recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office. Thus, legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120). As the penalty provided under section 65(5) of the IRO could potentially run counter to the right of workers to elect their representatives freely since this section seems to cover a wide range of conduct -some of which is of a criminal nature, while other acts might not necessarily render the persons found guilty inappropriate for holding trade union office - the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which section 64(1)(d) is to be interpreted and, more particularly, the wording "an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using pressure and other such means". It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any practical application of this provision.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes section 19(1) of the IRO, which provides that accounts maintained by the collective bargaining agent with a membership of 5,000 or more are subject to an external audit by a firm of accountants appointed by the registrar. In cases when the collective bargaining agent has a membership of less than 5,000, the accounts are subject to audit in the manner "as may be prescribed". Furthermore, section 58(d) confers to the registrar a power to inspect the accounts and records of the registered trade unions, investigate or hold such inquiry as he or she deems fit. The Committee recalls that there is no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if, for example, such supervision is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (which should not infringe the principles of freedom of association); similarly, there is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity. The Committee considers however that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect their accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 125). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 19(1) and 58(d) so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee also notes section 20(14) of the IRO, concerning collective bargaining agents, which provides that "the registrar may authorize in writing an office bearer to perform all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereafter". Recalling that the authorities should exercise great restraint in relation to the intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the meaning of this section and, in particular, whether it means that union officers may be restricted in their functions by the registrar.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to section 43(2) and (3) of the IRO, "no party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings" and representation is possible in the proceedings before the Labour Court, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the Court or the arbitrator, as the case may be. The Committee considers that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, according to which workers’ and employer’s organizations shall have the right to organize their administration and activities freely. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 43 so as to allow these organizations to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceeding should they so desire.

(c) Right to strike. The Committee notes that go-slow measures are forbidden under section 64(1)(f) and in the definition of "strike" provided for in section 2(xxviii). Go-slow is punishable by a fine which may extend up to 30,000 rupees and, in case of an office bearer, by disqualifying him or her from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately following his or her term, in addition to any other punishment which the Court might award (section 65(4) and (5)). The Committee recalls that any work stoppage, however brief and limited, may generally be considered as a strike. It is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful and that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 173 and 177). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful go-slow action is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction may be imposed for a participating in such action. 

The Committee further notes that according to section 31(3) of the IRO, where a strike lasts for more than 15 days, the federal or provincial Government may prohibit the strike at any time before the expiry of 30 days, "if it is satisfied that the continuance of such strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests" and shall prohibit the strike if it considers that the strike "is detrimental to the interests of the community at large". The Committee further notes that under section 31(4), following prohibition of the strike, the dispute is referred to the Commission or the Labour Court for compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls in this respect that prohibitions or restrictions in respect of the right to strike should be limited to essential services or situations of an acute national crisis and considers that the wording in section 31 is too broad and vague to be limited to these cases. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. 

The Committee notes that section 31(2) of the IRO authorizes "the party raising a dispute", either before or after the commencement of a strike, to make an application to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. During this time, the Labour Court (or Appellate Court) may prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 37(1)). The Committee recalls that a provision, which permits either party unilaterally to request the intervention of the public authorities for the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to exercise strike action by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention No. 87 (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. 

The Committee further requests the Government to indicate whether workers’ organizations may exercise strike action in search of solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends and whether workers may have recourse to sympathy strikes without penalty.

Articles 2 and 4. The Committee notes that under section 12(2), contravention of section 7, which prohibits a person who has been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming a trade union office bearer, is a ground for cancellation of trade union registration by the Labour Court. The Committee considers that, although the conviction for an act the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider amending this provision so as to enable the union members to rectify the situation by electing a new trade union officer.

Articles 2 and 5. Right of organization to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee notes that, according to section 3(1)(d), every collective bargaining agent is required to affiliate with a federation at the national level registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission within two months after it is certified as collective bargaining agent or after the promulgation of the IRO. The Committee recalls in this respect that the question as to whether or not to form or join a federation is a matter to be determined solely by the workers and their organizations themselves. Moreover, the fact that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing implies for the organizations themselves the right to establish and join federations of their own choosing and when they desire. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 3(1)(d) in order to ensure that workers’ organizations are allowed to determine themselves whether they wish to join a federation.

The Committee further notes that according to section 18(1), any ten or more trade unions, with at least one from each province, may constitute a federation or confederation at the national level. The Committee considers that the minimum requirement of ten trade unions, with at least one from each province, for establishment of a national federation is excessively high and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to lower this minimum or the obligation to at least one union from every province.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which has repealed the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. 1. Managerial and supervisory staff. The Committee notes with interest that the definition of "worker" has been amended by repealing the exclusion of persons employed in a supervisory capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month. The Committee notes however that the definition of "worker" provided for in section 2(xxx) of the IRO continues to exclude "persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity" and that section 63(2) provides that a person promoted or appointed to a managerial position ceases to be a member of a trade union. The Committee recalls in this respect that restrictions may be placed on the right to organize of managerial staff, provided that such workers have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests and that the category of executive and managerial staff is not so broadly defined as to weaken the organizations of other workers by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 86-88). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that managerial staff may form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests.

2. Other exclusions. The Committee further notes with regret that, according to section 1(4) of the IRO, workers employed in the following establishments or industries are excluded from its scope: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan including Ministry of Defence lines of the railways; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the railways, post, telegraph and telephone departments; establishment or institution maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institution established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged on the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport.

The Committee also understands from a previous comment made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) that the Government has not lifted the ban on trade union activities at the Karachi Electric Supply Company. The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s statement to the effect that the KESC management is taking all possible measures to improve the working environment along with the welfare of workers. The Committee would like to point out that the issue in question is the right of the KESC workers to establish their organizations freely.

Furthermore, the Committee notes from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2242 that the Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 has abolished the trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines.

The Committee recalls that, with the exception of the members of police and the armed forces, the right to organize should be fully guaranteed to all workers. It further considers that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure the right to organize of all workers, with the only possible exception being the members of the police and armed forces.

The Committee further notes with regret that the new IRO does not address the previous concerns of the Committee concerning the right to organize for agricultural workers. In its report, the Government states that the IRO 2002 does not cover agriculture and that "the rights and welfare of agricultural workers has remained without any legal support". It further states that the necessary legislation would be developed within the next five years to ensure the rights and welfare of agricultural workers. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure the right to organize for agricultural workers in the very near future.

Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in framing labour legislation to ensure the rights under the Convention to export processing zones workers and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

Article 3. (a). Right to elect representatives freely. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that this section does not restrict the right of workers to elect their representative among members of the union. The Committee once again recalls that provisions requiring officers of trade unions to be chosen from among union members infringes the right of workers’ organizations to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons among their own ranks. Noting further the seriousness of the penalty for violation of this provision, the Committee urges the Government to amend its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting as candidates persons who have been previously employed in the banking company.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that the federal or provincial Government may prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility services at any time before or after its commencement and refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators for compulsory arbitration (section 32 of the IRO). A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section is deemed illegal by virtue of section 38(1)(c). The Committee notes that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term - oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The schedule also mentions watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment.

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the federal or provincial Government is empowered to call off a strike before or after its commencement in establishments to which the Essential Services Act of 1952 is applicable. The Government adds that this Act is applied to the establishments where stoppage of work is prejudicial to the national interests or causing serious hardship to the community. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for some time now to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee considers that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation so as to ensure that workers employed in oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports may have recourse to strike action and so that compulsory arbitration may only be applied in these cases at the request of both parties. Recalling again the heavy penal sanctions linked to violation of the Essential Services Act, it further requests the Government to amend this Act so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also requests the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the "watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment".

Rather than imposing a prohibition on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers which suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could however establish a system of minimum services of public utilities. A minimum service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, and this aspect is paramount, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the strike action. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 160 and 161).

The Committee further notes that section 39(7) provides the following sanctions for contravening a labour court’s order to call off the strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following. The Committee recalls in this respect that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). More specifically, the Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to amend section 39(7) of the IRO so as to ensure that sanctions for strike action may only be imposed where the prohibition of the strike is in conformity with the Convention and that, even in those cases, the sanctions imposed are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in respect of all of the abovementioned points. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. (a) Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that the definition of the term "industry" (section 2(xvii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969) excludes workers of charitable organizations "operating through public or private donations where ‘charitable purpose’ includes provision of education, medical care, emergency relief and other needs of the poor and indigent". Recalling that all workers, with only the exception of the members of the police and the armed forces, should enjoy the right to establish and join trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether workers of charitable organizations enjoy the rights to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee further notes section 7 of the IRO which appears to disqualify persons who have been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming members or office bearers of a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether the persons mentioned in section 7 are indeed prohibited from becoming trade union members or whether this section is limited to prohibiting their membership on trade union executive boards.

(b) Right to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that according to section 6(2)(a) of the IRO, only trade unions of workers engaged or employed in the same establishment or industry may be registered. Recalling that under Article 2 of the Convention workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing, including organizations grouping together workers from different workplaces or industries but with the same trade (for example, plumbers), the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether occupational or professional trade unions may also be registered.

The Committee also notes that under section 6(2) of the IRO, the minimum membership requirement was raised from 20 to 25 per cent. The Committee recalls that although a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 81). The Committee considers that the minimum membership requirement set at 25 per cent of the total number of workers employed at the respective establishment or industry is too high and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to lower it.

The Committee further notes that the IRO grants to the collective bargaining agent, i.e. the most representative trade union, rights which go beyond collective bargaining. According to section 20(13)(b), the collective bargaining agent has the exclusive right to represent all or any of the workers in any proceedings. Section 43(1) is to the same effect. By virtue of sections 20(13)(c) and 56(1), the collective bargaining agent has the further exclusive right to call a strike. The right to check-off facilities is also reserved for the collective bargaining agent under section 21. The Committee recalls in this respect that the workers’ freedom of choice would be jeopardized if the distinction between most representative and minority unions results, in law or in practice, in the granting of privileges such as to influence unduly the choice of organization by workers. Therefore, the distinction between the most representative organization and other organizations should not have the effect of depriving the minority unions of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members (for instance, representing them in individual grievances) and for organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes as provided by the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 98). The Committee therefore asks the Government to amend its legislation so as to extend the right to the check-off facilities and the right to call a strike to all trade unions, accompanied by any reasonable prerequisites. It further requests the Government to indicate whether minority unions may represent their members should they so desire, in respect of individual grievances.

The Committee further notes that trade union registration may be cancelled by the registrar on the grounds that a trade union has not been a contestant in a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent (section 12(3)(ii)); or has not applied for determination of the collective bargaining agent under section 20(2) within two months of its registration as another union or promulgation of the Ordinance, whichever is earlier, provided there does not already exist a collective bargaining agent determined under section 20(11) in an establishment, or group of establishments or industry (section 12(3)(iii)); or has secured less than 15 per cent of polled votes per final list of voters, during a referendum for the determination of the collective bargaining agent (section 12(3)(iv)). The Committee considers that the provisions contained in section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv), which allow dissolution of the trade union, prevent workers from maintaining their membership and pursuing their activities in the trade union of their own choosing and therefore are not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to repeal section 12(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the IRO.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. The Committee notes that under section 39(7) of the IRO, the Labour Court has the power to disqualify a trade union office bearer from holding any trade union office for the unexpired term of his or her office and for the term immediately following, for violation of its order to stop a strike. The Committee considers that such a sanction should only be possible where the strike prohibition in question is in conformity with the principle of freedom of association and should not be imposed if the action in question is peaceful. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee further notes that the same sanction is also provided for in section 65(5) for committing an unfair labour practice broadly defined under section 64(1)(d) as an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using, among others means, intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, disconnection of telephone, water or power facilities. The Committee recalls in this respect that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office. Thus, legislation which establishes excessively broad ineligibility criteria by means of a long list, including acts which have no real connection with the qualities of integrity required for the exercise of trade union office, is incompatible with the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 120). As the penalty provided under section 65(5) of the IRO could potentially run counter to the right of workers to elect their representatives freely since this section seems to cover a wide range of conduct -some of which is of a criminal nature, while other acts might not necessarily render the persons found guilty inappropriate for holding trade union office - the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which section 64(1)(d) is to be interpreted and, more particularly, the wording "an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to accept any demands by using pressure and other such means". It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any practical application of this provision.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes section 19(1) of the IRO, which provides that accounts maintained by the collective bargaining agent with a membership of 5,000 or more are subject to an external audit by a firm of accountants appointed by the registrar. In cases when the collective bargaining agent has a membership of less than 5,000, the accounts are subject to audit in the manner "as may be prescribed". Furthermore, section 58(d) confers to the registrar a power to inspect the accounts and records of the registered trade unions, investigate or hold such inquiry as he or she deems fit. The Committee recalls that there is no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if, for example, such supervision is limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (which should not infringe the principles of freedom of association); similarly, there is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity. The Committee considers however that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the administrative authority has the power to audit the trade union’s accounts, to inspect their accounts and records and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 125). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 19(1) and 58(d) so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee also notes section 20(14) of the IRO, concerning collective bargaining agents, which provides that "the registrar may authorize in writing an office bearer to perform all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereafter". Recalling that the authorities should exercise great restraint in relation to the intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the meaning of this section and, in particular, whether it means that union officers may be restricted in their functions by the registrar.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to section 43(2) and (3) of the IRO, "no party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings" and representation is possible in the proceedings before the Labour Court, or arbitrator, only with the permission of the Court or the arbitrator, as the case may be. The Committee considers that legislation which prevents workers’ and/or employers’ organizations from using the services of experts such as lawyers and agents to represent them in administrative or judicial proceedings is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, according to which workers’ and employer’s organizations shall have the right to organize their administration and activities freely. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 43 so as to allow these organizations to be represented by lawyers in administrative or judicial proceeding should they so desire.

(c) Right to strike. The Committee notes that go-slow measures are forbidden under section 64(1)(f) and in the definition of "strike" provided for in section 2(xxviii). Go-slow is punishable by a fine which may extend up to 30,000 rupees and, in case of an office bearer, by disqualifying him or her from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately following his or her term, in addition to any other punishment which the Court might award (section 65(4) and (5)). The Committee recalls that any work stoppage, however brief and limited, may generally be considered as a strike. It is of the opinion that restrictions as to the forms of strike action can only be justified if the action ceases to be peaceful and that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 173 and 177). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that a peaceful go-slow action is not considered to be a prohibited unfair labour practice and that no sanction may be imposed for a participating in such action. 

The Committee further notes that according to section 31(3) of the IRO, where a strike lasts for more than 15 days, the federal or provincial Government may prohibit the strike at any time before the expiry of 30 days, "if it is satisfied that the continuance of such strike is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interests" and shall prohibit the strike if it considers that the strike "is detrimental to the interests of the community at large". The Committee further notes that under section 31(4), following prohibition of the strike, the dispute is referred to the Commission or the Labour Court for compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls in this respect that prohibitions or restrictions in respect of the right to strike should be limited to essential services or situations of an acute national crisis and considers that the wording in section 31 is too broad and vague to be limited to these cases. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. 

The Committee notes that section 31(2) of the IRO authorizes "the party raising a dispute", either before or after the commencement of a strike, to make an application to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. During this time, the Labour Court (or Appellate Court) may prohibit the continuation of the existing strike action (section 37(1)). The Committee recalls that a provision, which permits either party unilaterally to request the intervention of the public authorities for the settlement of a dispute through compulsory arbitration leading to a final award, effectively undermines the right to exercise strike action by making it possible to prohibit virtually all strikes or to end them quickly. Such system seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interests of their members as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention No. 87 (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 153). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend this provision so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. 

The Committee further requests the Government to indicate whether workers’ organizations may exercise strike action in search of solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends and whether workers may have recourse to sympathy strikes without penalty.

Articles 2 and 4. The Committee notes that under section 12(2), contravention of section 7, which prohibits a person who has been convicted for embezzlement or misappropriation of funds or of a criminal offence of heinous nature within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as theft, physical assault, murder, attempt to murder, etc., from becoming a trade union office bearer, is a ground for cancellation of trade union registration by the Labour Court. The Committee considers that, although the conviction for an act the nature of which calls into question the integrity of the person concerned may represent grounds for disqualification for trade union office, that should not constitute a reason for cancellation of trade union registration, which is tantamount to dissolution of the union. To deprive workers of their trade union organization because of illegal activities previously carried out by one of its leaders is, in the Committee’s opinion, a disproportionate sanction which violates the rights of workers to organize under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider amending this provision so as to enable the union members to rectify the situation by electing a new trade union officer.

Articles 2 and 5. Right of organization to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee notes that, according to section 3(1)(d), every collective bargaining agent is required to affiliate with a federation at the national level registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission within two months after it is certified as collective bargaining agent or after the promulgation of the IRO. The Committee recalls in this respect that the question as to whether or not to form or join a federation is a matter to be determined solely by the workers and their organizations themselves. Moreover, the fact that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing implies for the organizations themselves the right to establish and join federations of their own choosing and when they desire. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 3(1)(d) in order to ensure that workers’ organizations are allowed to determine themselves whether they wish to join a federation.

The Committee further notes that according to section 18(1), any ten or more trade unions, with at least one from each province, may constitute a federation or confederation at the national level. The Committee considers that the minimum requirement of ten trade unions, with at least one from each province, for establishment of a national federation is excessively high and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to lower this minimum or the obligation to at least one union from every province.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the observations made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in a communication dated 9 July 2003 concerning the application of the Convention, as well as the communications sent by the APFTU and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in 2002. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2229 (330th Report, March 2003) and 2242 (332nd Report, November 2003).

The Committee notes the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which has repealed the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969.

Article 2 of the Convention.  Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. 1. Managerial and supervisory staff. The Committee notes with interest that the definition of "worker" has been amended by repealing the exclusion of persons employed in a supervisory capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month. The Committee notes however that the definition of "worker" provided for in section 2(xxx) of the IRO continues to exclude "persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity" and that section 63(2) provides that a person promoted or appointed to a managerial position ceases to be a member of a trade union. The Committee recalls in this respect that restrictions may be placed on the right to organize of managerial staff, provided that such workers have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests and that the category of executive and managerial staff is not so broadly defined as to weaken the organizations of other workers by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 86-88). The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that managerial staff may form and join organizations to defend their own social and occupational interests.

2. Other exclusions. The Committee further notes with regret that, according to section 1(4) of the IRO, workers employed in the following establishments or industries are excluded from its scope: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan including Ministry of Defence lines of the railways; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the railways, post, telegraph and telephone departments; establishment or institution maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institution established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged on the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport.

The Committee also understands from the APFTU’s statement that the Government has not lifted the ban on trade union activities at the Karachi Electric Supply Company. The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s statement to the effect that the KESC management is taking all possible measures to improve the working environment along with the welfare of workers. The Committee would like to point out that the issue in question is the right of the KESC workers to establish their organizations freely.

Furthermore, the Committee notes from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2242 that the Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 has abolished the trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines.

The Committee recalls that, with the exception of the members of police and the armed forces, the right to organize should be fully guaranteed to all workers. It further considers that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure the right to organize of all workers, with the only possible exception being the members of the police and armed forces.

The Committee further notes with regret that the new IRO does not address the previous concerns of the Committee concerning the right to organize for agricultural workers. In its report, the Government states that the IRO 2002 does not cover agriculture and that "the rights and welfare of agricultural workers has remained without any legal support". It further states that the necessary legislation would be developed within the next five years to ensure the rights and welfare of agricultural workers. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in order to ensure the right to organize for agricultural workers in the very near future.

Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in framing labour legislation to ensure the rights under the Convention to export processing zones workers and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

Article 3. (a) Right to elect representatives freely. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that this section does not restrict the right of workers to elect their representative among members of the union. The Committee once again recalls that provisions requiring officers of trade unions to be chosen from among union members infringes the right of workers’ organizations to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons among their own ranks. Noting further the seriousness of the penalty for violation of this provision, the Committee urges the Government to amend its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting as candidates persons who have been previously employed in the banking company.

(b) Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that the federal or provincial Government may prohibit a strike related to an industrial dispute in respect of any public utility services at any time before or after its commencement and refer the dispute to a board of arbitrators for compulsory arbitration (section 32 of the IRO). A strike carried out in contravention of an order made under this section is deemed illegal by virtue of section 38(1)(c). The Committee notes that Schedule I setting out the list of public utility services includes services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term - oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports. The schedule also mentions watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment.

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the federal or provincial Government is empowered to call off a strike before or after its commencement in establishments to which the Essential Services Act of 1952 is applicable. The Government adds that this Act is applied to the establishments where stoppage of work is prejudicial to the national interests or causing serious hardship to the community. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for some time now to amend the Essential Services Act, which included services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee considers that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation so as to ensure that workers employed in oil production, postal services, railways, airways and ports may have recourse to strike action and so that compulsory arbitration may only be applied in these cases at the request of both parties. Recalling again the heavy penal sanctions linked to violation of the Essential Services Act, it further requests the Government to amend this Act so as to ensure that its scope is limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also requests the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the "watch and ward staff and security services maintained in any establishment".

Rather than imposing a prohibition on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers which suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could however establish a system of minimum services of public utilities. A minimum service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, and this aspect is paramount, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the strike action. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 160 and 161).

The Committee further notes that section 39(7) provides the following sanctions for contravening a labour court’s order to call off the strike: dismissal of the striking workers; cancellation of the registration of a trade union; debarring of trade union officers from holding office in that or any other trade union for the unexpired term of their offices and for the term immediately following. The Committee recalls in this respect that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, existence of heavy and disproportionate sanctions for strike action may create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). More specifically, the Committee considers that the cancellation of trade union registration, in view of the serious and far-reaching consequences which dissolution of a union involves for the representation of workers’ interests, would be disproportionate even if the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to amend section 39(7) of the IRO so as to ensure that sanctions for strike action may only be imposed where the prohibition of the strike is in conformity with the Convention and that, even in those cases, the sanctions imposed are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in respect of all of the abovementioned points. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still in force.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee noted from the Government’s report for last year that agriculture in Pakistan was governed by a separate set of laws such as tenancy laws, Revenue Act, etc. It further noted the Government’s declaration that it was now trying to bring the agricultural sector under the purview of the labour laws.

The Committee once again emphasizes that Article 2 provides that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. While agriculture is not expressly excluded from the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, it is not expressly included and the definitions given in the Ordinance can be interpreted as excluding small agricultural units, such as self-employed farmers, sharecroppers, tenants and smallholders, from its application. Therefore, the Committee considers that there is an important gap in the legislation and requests the Government to take appropriate measures to modify existing laws or enact new laws in relation to workers engaged in agriculture and their right to establish organizations in order to comply with its obligation to respect and fully apply the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on legislative and other measures taken or envisaged to ensure that those engaged in agriculture including sharecroppers, tenants, farmers, small independent farmers, and other categories of agricultural workers working in small agricultural units enjoy full rights under the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 18 September 2002 and by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) dated 11 November 2002, which concern the promulgation of the new Industrial Relations Ordinance of 2002. The Committee requests that the Government transmit, with its next report, its observations in this regard, so that it may examine these points at its next meeting. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2096 (329th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 285th Session in November 2002).

As regards certain other points previously referred to in its comments, the Committee must repeat its observations, which read as follows:

Article 2 of the Convention

1. The Committee notes from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that the Government still has not lifted the ban on trade union activities at Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) and restored the rights of the KESC Democratic Mazdoor Union as collective bargaining agent. The Committee once again urges the Government to take such measures without delay and to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

2. The Committee noted the indication in the Government’s report for last year that it had authorized the Export Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) to frame draft labour legislation and that draft labour laws were being finalized by the Authority and sent to the relevant ministries of the federal Government for vetting, clearance and enactment. The Committee once again trusts that this legislation will ensure the rights under the Convention to EPZ workers and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this regard and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

Article 3

Right to elect officers freely. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government concerning section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee once again recalls that provisions of this type infringe the right of workers’ organizations to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons among their own ranks. Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting as candidates persons who have been previously employed in the banking company.

Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still applicable.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that agriculture in Pakistan is governed by a separate set of laws such as tenancy laws, Revenue Act, etc. It further notes the Government’s declaration that it is now trying to bring the agricultural sector under the purview of the labour laws.

The Committee once again emphasizes that Article 2 provides that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. While agriculture is not expressly excluded from the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, it is not expressly included and the definitions given in the Ordinance can be interpreted as excluding small agricultural units, such as self-employed farmers, sharecroppers, tenants and smallholders, from its application. Therefore, the Committee considers that there is an important gap in the legislation and requests the Government to take appropriate measures to modify existing laws or enact new laws in relation to workers engaged in agriculture and their right to establish organizations in order to comply with its obligation to respect and fully apply the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on legislative and other measures taken or envisaged to ensure that those engaged in agriculture including sharecroppers, tenants, farmers, small independent farmers, and other categories of agricultural workers working in small agricultural units enjoy full rights under the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report. It also notes the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2001 and the discussions which ensued thereafter. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2096 (326th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 282nd Session in November 2001).

Article 2 of the Convention

1. The Committee notes from the information provided in the Government’s report that the ban on trade union activities in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) has not been lifted. The Government states that due to the adverse financial situation of the KESC, it may take more time for the restoration of trade union activities in the KESC. The Committee notes with regret, that the Government repeats its previous argument that it will restore trade union rights in the KESC as soon as the enterprise becomes viable and productive again. The Committee considers that the viability of an enterprise must not be a precondition for guaranteeing fundamental rights on freedom of association. The Committee once again requests the Government to lift the ban on trade union activities in the KESC and to restore the trade union and collective bargaining rights of KESC workers without delay and to keep it informed of measures taken in this regard.

2. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s latest report that it has authorized the Export Processing Zones Authority (EPZA) to frame draft labour legislation and that draft labour laws are being finalized by the Authority and sent to the relevant ministries of the federal Government for vetting, clearance and enactment. The Committee trusts that this legislation will ensure the rights under the Convention to the EPZ workers and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this regard and to transmit a copy of any relevant draft texts or adopted legislation.

3. As concerns the exclusion from the definition of workers in the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month, the Committee regrets that no information was provided in this regard. It once again requests the Government to indicate the progress made in amending this definition so as to ensure that only those with true managerial and supervisory capacity may eventually be excluded from workers’ unions.

4. Finally, as concerns the exclusion from the IRO of public servants of grade 16 and above, and of forestry, railway and hospital workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the rights guaranteed by the Convention to these category of workers.

Article 3.

1. Right to elect officers freely. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962 which restricts the possibility of becoming an officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The Committee once again recalls that provisions of this type infringe the right of workers’ organizations to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons among their own ranks. When national legislation imposes conditions of this kind on all trade union leaders, there is also a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office. In order to bring such legislation into conformity with the Convention, it would be desirable to make it more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 117). Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, either by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, or by admitting as candidates persons who have been previously employed in the banking company.

2. Right to organize activities and administration. As regards the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the employees of Civil Aviation and of Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTV and PBC) may have recourse to industrial action without penalty, the Committee notes with interest information provided by the Government that in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the parallel legal framework regulating Employees Management Relations, has been drafted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and is likely to be notified soon. According to the Government, CAA employees have not been treated as essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee further notes with interest that the PBC have allowed union formation by employees from scales 1 to 4, who may engage in trade union activities, including the right to strike, provided they ensure a minimum service. Furthermore, the PBC has recommended that 50 per cent of employees of scales 5 and 6 may go on strike. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the minimum services established at the PBC came about as a result of an agreement between the workers and employers concerned and to indicate any further developments enabling civil aviation and PTV employees to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities, including possible recourse to industrial action.

3. As regards the public utility and essential services, in its previous comments the Committee noted that sections 4 and 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952 provide for sanctions with up to one year imprisonment of any person engaged in any employment declared applicable by the Act (which includes services beyond those which can be considered essential in the strict sense of the term) who disobeys a Government order not to depart from specified areas and that section 33 of the IRO permits the Government to issue an order prohibiting strikes in respect of any of the public utility services. While noting the indication in the Government’s report that these restrictions were made keeping in view the vital importance of certain services in the economic and social life of the nation, the Committee notes that the legislation continues to apply to services which cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population and to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, paragraphs 158-160)). The Committee further notes that, while the Government states that postal workers are federal government servants and would therefore not be covered by the IRO, postal services, railways and airways still figure on the list of public utility services in the Schedule to the IRO and would therefore appear to be restricted in their exercise of industrial action. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and section 33 of the IRO so as to ensure that the prohibition of industrial action will be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (such as those working in Government, ministries, judicial or legislative bodies, but not including employees in state enterprises or institutions).

Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or go-slows, with up to seven years’ imprisonment, is still applicable.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not replied to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The right to organize for agricultural workers

The Committee notes from the Industrial Relations Ordinance that the term "worker" refers to any person who is employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor (section 2). Furthermore, "employer" is restrictively defined in relation to an establishment which means "any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on an industry, i.e., any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation" (section 2). While these definitions would seem to apply to industrial agriculture and agricultural farms run on a commercial basis, it would not appear to include the bulk of agricultural workers like self-employed farmers, sharecroppers and smallholders. Noting that Article 2 provides that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the number of trade unions and associations of self-employed workers comprising persons engaged in agriculture and their membership, and on any legislative or other measures taken or envisaged to ensure in practice that workers engaged in agriculture including sharecroppers, tenants, farmers, small independent farmers, and other categories of agricultural workers working in small agricultural units enjoy full rights under this Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, as well as the observations made by the Federal Organization for Banks and Financial Institutions Employees (FOBFIE). The Committee further notes the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2006 (see 323rd Report, paragraphs 408-430, approved by the Governing Body in November 2000).

The Committee notes with satisfaction from the information supplied with the Government’s report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that the ban on trade union activities in the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) has now been lifted. The Committee further notes from the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association that the ban on trade union activities in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) was to continue until 31 October 2000 and requests the Government to confirm in its next report that this ban has indeed been lifted and that the Presidential Ordinance No. VIII of 1999 which appeared to exclude workers at KESC from the purview of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance has been repealed.

The Committee recalls that the other points which it has been addressing for many years concern the following serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention: denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to workers in export processing zones; the exclusion from the Industrial Relations Ordinance of public servants of grade 16 and above, and of forestry, railway and hospital workers; denial of the right to strike for civil aviation employees and employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations, as well as other services not considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term, such as postal services and railways; restrictions on membership to bank unions and on their officers, and finally, a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment for the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes, under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997.

As regards export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government’s latest report that the exemption of EPZs from the application of the labour laws is likely to be lifted by the end of the year 2000 and that a separate set of rules will be framed that will be in consonance with the ILO Conventions ratified by Pakistan. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report the progress made in ensuring the rights guaranteed by this Convention to workers in EPZs and invites it to consider accepting the technical assistance of the Office in this regard.

The Committee notes with regret, however, that, with the exception of the abovementioned developments in respect of export processing zones and certain indications concerning civil aviation employees and employees of Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTV and PBC), the Government practically reiterates the same arguments it has been making for many years and that serious discrepancies continue to exist between the national legislation and the Convention on the issues mentioned above.

In respect of the information provided in the Government’s report concerning the right to strike for employees in civil aviation and at PTV and PBC, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information in its next report concerning the establishment of minimum services at the PBC and to indicate any further developments enabling civil aviation and PTV employees to carry out industrial action without penalty.

Finally, the Committee notes the observations made by the Federal Organization for Banks and Financial Institutions Employees (FOBFIE) to the effect that banking companies are laying off their workers as a result of section 27-B of the Banking Companies’ Ordinance (which restricts the possibility of becoming a member or officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment) in attempts to attack the trade unions in the banks. These attacks, according to the FOBFIE, have paralysed the trade unions and their cases in the superior courts for restoration have been pending for over three years now. In this respect, the Committee recalls its previous comments requesting the Government to give serious consideration to amend section 27-B so as to admit as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization. Such flexibility is particularly important in that it may help to avoid the types of regular dismissals aimed at weakening the trade union movement which are complained of above. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations made by the FOBFIE in its next report and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to make this restriction more flexible along the lines indicated above.

As concerns the other points raised, the Committee is bound to refer to its previous detailed observations and urges the Government to amend its legislation accordingly in the very near future.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The right to organize for agricultural workers

The Committee notes from the Industrial Relations Ordinance that the term "worker" refers to any person who is employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor (section 2). Furthermore, "employer" is restrictively defined in relation to an establishment which means "any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on an industry, i.e., any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation" (section 2). While these definitions would seem to apply to industrial agriculture and agricultural farms run on a commercial basis, it would not appear to include the bulk of agricultural workers like self-employed farmers, sharecroppers and smallholders. Noting that Article 2 provides that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the number of trade unions and associations of self-employed workers comprising persons engaged in agriculture and their membership, and on any legislative or other measures taken or envisaged to ensure in practice that workers engaged in agriculture including sharecroppers, tenants, farmers, small independent farmers, and other categories of agricultural workers working in small agricultural units enjoy full rights under this Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the observations made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU). It further takes note of the interim conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2006 (see 318th Report, paragraphs 324-352, approved by the Governing Body in November 1999).

I. Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention (the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and the right not to be liable to administrative dissolution or suspension

1. Suspension of trade union rights for workers of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and the exclusion of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) workers, as well as forestry, railway and hospital workers from the Industrial Relations Ordinance

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of Case No. 2006 and, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, expresses its deep regret at the measures taken in Presidential Ordinance No. XX of 1998 (repromulgated under Presidential Ordinance No. V of 1999) resulting in the de-registration and effective suspension of the WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union, contrary to Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the effects of this suspension have now elapsed and, if not, to take the necessary measures urgently to restore full trade union rights to the WAPDA union. Furthermore, noting that the WAPDA union has filed an appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar to cancel its registration, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of this judgement as soon as it is handed down.

The Committee also notes Presidential Ordinance No. VIII of 1999 which would appear to exclude workers of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation from the purview of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO). Given that the IRO sets forth, among others, the conditions for trade union registration, this ordinance violates Article 2 of the Convention. Recalling furthermore its previous comments concerning the exclusion of hospital workers, forestry and railway workers from the provisions of the IRO, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure the full right to organize for all the abovementioned categories of workers.

2. Export processing zones

With reference to its previous comments concerning the denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980 and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982), the Committee recalls the Government's indication in its previous report that the exclusion of EPZs was not a permanent feature, but that it was unlikely that the Export Processing Zones Authority provision would be lifted before 2001. Recalling that the provisions of this Convention should apply to all workers, without distinction, including workers in export processing zones, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report the progress made in ensuring the rights guaranteed by this Convention to workers in EPZs.

3. High-level public servants and the restricted definition of "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance

Concerning the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the term "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision)) and thus from the possibility of forming trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that public servants of Grade 16 and above enjoy the right to organize.

As concerns the further exclusion from the definition of workers in the IRO of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month (far below the national minimum wage), the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the progress made in amending this definition so as to ensure that only those with true managerial and supervisory capacity may eventually be excluded from workers' unions.

II. Article 3 (the right of workers' organizations to elect their officer freely and to organize their activities and formulate their programmes without government interference)

1. Union of Civil Aviation Employees, as well as the employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTVC and PBC)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that the Supreme Court, while restoring the right of these employees to organize and to bargain collectively, also declared that these employees could not take industrial action in the absence of statutory backing. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that these employees, to the extent that they do not fall within essential services in the strict sense of the term, may take industrial action without penalty.

2. Public utility services and essential services

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which permits the Government to issue an order prohibiting strikes in respect of any of the public utility services and sections 4 and 7 of the 1952 Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act which sanctions with up to one year imprisonment any person engaged in any employment declared applicable by the Act who disobeys a government order not to depart from specified areas. The Committee notes that this legislation has been and is still applied to services which cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population and to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 158-160). By way of example the Committee notes that postal services, railways and airways still figure on the list of public utility services in the Schedule to the IRO (1998 edition of the Labour Code). The Committee urges the Government to amend the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the schedule thereto in the near future so as to ensure that the prohibition of industrial action will be limited to essential services or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State.

In its previous comments, the Committee also pointed out that, under section 32(2) of the IRO, the Government may prohibit any strike lasting more than 30 days. It therefore further urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this section to ensure that the prohibition of strike action may occur only in respect of the abovementioned services and restricted group of public servants and in the event of an acute national crisis (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

3. Amendment to the Banking Companies Ordinance

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the amendment to section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, which restricted the possibility of becoming a member or officer of a bank union only to employees of the bank in question, under penalty of up to three years' imprisonment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to make this restriction more flexible either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

4. Amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997

The Committee notes with concern the promulgation of Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999 which amends the Anti-Terrorism Act by, among others, inserting a provision concerning the creation of civil commotion, punishable under the Act by up to seven years' imprisonment. Civil commotion is defined under section 7A to include the commencement or continuation of illegal strikes, go-slows or lockouts. The Committee would first recall that it considers that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether this Ordinance is still applicable and, if so, to consider amending the text so as to ensure that disproportionate penal sanctions are not applied even to illegal industrial action under national law which would be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It also notes the statement of the Government representative to the 1998 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and the discussion which took place therein.

1. Employees in civil aviation and at the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the Union of Civil Aviation Employees, as well as the employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTVC and PBC), which restores the rights of these employees to organize and to bargain collectively. It further notes the Government's indication that this judgement has been honoured by the bodies concerned and trade union activities have been restored in respect of these employees. The Committee notes with regret, however, from paragraph 33 of this judgement that these employees cannot go on strike or take other industrial action in the absence of statutory backing.

The Committee must once again recall in this regard that the right to strike, may only be restricted in respect of essential services, that is services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and in cases of acute national crisis. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that employees of the civil aviation authority and of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations, to the extent that they do not fall within the above-mentioned definition of essential services in the strict sense of the term, may take industrial action without penalty. The Government may consider in this regard the establishment, in consultation with the workers' organizations concerned, of a negotiated minimum service to meet basic needs or to ensure that facilities are operated safely.

2. Amendment to the Banking Companies Ordinance. The Committee notes the confirmation in the Government's report that the amendment to section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, providing that only employees of the bank in question can become members or officers of the bank union was made to control the disruptive activities in the banking sector in the public interest and to maintain the viability of the economy. The Government asserts that this section does not bar trade union activities nor does it in any way interfere with such activities.

While noting the Government's request to consider the special circumstances for Pakistan banks in this regard, the Committee must recall that provisions which require all candidates for trade union office to belong to the respective occupation, enterprise or production are contrary to the guarantees set forth in Article 3 of the Convention and infringe the organization's right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 117). The Committee further notes with great concern that section 27-B(2) provides that a violation of this section is punishable with up to three years' imprisonment. Recalling that the legislation may be made more flexible either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will give serious consideration to amending this provision so as to ensure that workers have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom along the lines mentioned above.

3. Export processing zones. With reference to its previous comments concerning the denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982), the Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that this is not a permanent feature and that these exemptions will be withdrawn by the year 2000. The Government adds that express agreements with investors which provide reciprocal obligations are to be honoured and make it unlikely that the Export Processing Zones Authority provision will be lifted before 2001. The Committee recalls that the provisions of this Convention should apply to all workers, without distinction, including workers in export processing zones, and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in ensuring the rights guaranteed by this Convention to workers in EPZs.

4. Higher-level public servants. With reference to its previous comments concerning the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision)), the Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that this Convention needs to be read with Convention No. 98 and that such workers are exempted from the latter. The Committee must recall, however, that under Article 2 of this Convention, all workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to form and join the organization of their own choosing. The Committee further recalls that it has considered it to be admissible for first-level organizations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers, provided that their organizations are not restricted to any particular ministry, department or service and that they may freely join federations and confederations of their own choosing. As concerns the capacity of these workers as supervisors, the Committee recalls that restrictions may be placed on the right to organize of managerial or supervisory staff provided that such workers have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests and that the category of executive and managerial staff is not so broadly defined as to weaken the organizations of other workers by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 86-88). It therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that public servants of Grade 16 and above enjoy the right to organize in accordance with the above-mentioned principles.

5. Public utility services. As concerns the possibility for the government authorities to prohibit strikes in public utility services (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the IRO), the Committee notes the Government's indication that such restrictions are necessary to check strikes at some point of time and which may be of national importance. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this authority has been used in recent years and, if so, in respect of which public utilities.

6. Definition of "workman" in the IRO and the use of artificial promotions. As concerns the exclusion from the definition of workers in the IRO, and thus of the right to join a trade union, of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month (when the national minimum wage was fixed in 1995 at 1500), the Committee notes the Government's indication of its cognizance of this matter and its statement that an amendment is only possible with interministerial and tripartite consensus. According to the Government, workers have the right to form trade unions regardless of the upper wage limit which is only relevant to those working in a supervisory capacity. The Committee recalls in this respect however its previous comments concerning artificial promotions used as an anti-union tactic in the banking and finance sector. While noting the Government's indication that the State Bank of Pakistan has reported that no artificial promotions have taken place in five major banks and that workers have the right to refuse such promotions, the Committee must still express its serious concern that the definition of worker in the IRO may give rise to anti-union acts on the part of the employer in order to limit the strength of unions in their enterprise. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will be in a position in its next report to indicate the progress made in amending this definition so as to ensure that only those with true managerial and supervisory capacity may be excluded from workers' unions.

7. Hospital workers. For several years now the Committee has raised its concern in respect of the denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the abuse of authority acquired as a result of trade unionism particularly in the case of hospitals is detrimental to the full and timely care of patients. On numerous occasions the Committee has recalled that the right to organize for hospital workers does not necessarily imply the recognition of the right to strike for such workers who may be restricted in this regard as an essential service in the strict sense of the term. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will give serious consideration to ensuring, in the very near future, the right to organize for employees in public and private sector hospitals.

8. Forestry and railway workers. As concerns its comments in respect of the denial of the right to organize of forestry workers and railway employees, the Committee notes the Government's indication that while forestry workers do not have the right to form trade unions under the IRO, they do have the right to form associations. Being declared as state employees, however, they are exempted from undertaking trade union activities within the meaning of Convention No. 98. As for railway workers, the Government states that only the 18 sections of railway lines which were classified as defence installations are excluded from the IRO. The Committee must once again recall its previous comments in which it indicated that railway workers could not be considered to be part of the armed forces for the permissible exclusion under Article 9. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure the full right to organize for these workers, as well as the rights of their organizations to carry out their administration and activities and formulate their programmes without government interference, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3.

9. List of essential services. As concerns the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Committee notes from the Government's report that the list of services prohibited from strike by virtue of this Act has been reduced to five, three of which concern the supply of electrical power. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the relevant text making enforceable this new restricted list and to give further consideration to deleting from this list the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Limited and Dr. Khan Research Laboratories insofar as they are not essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Government is also requested to indicate in its next report the services currently covered by the 1958 West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and the Punjab and Sindh Essential Services (Maintenance) Acts.

The Committee must recall that it has been making comments on the above-mentioned discrepancies with the Convention for many years now. The Committee expressed the firmest hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the very near future to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on these matters and requests it to indicate in its next report the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

I. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report which merely repeats precisely the information provided in its previous report. It also takes note of the comments made by the Pakistan Workers' Confederation (PWC) and the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU).

1. As regards the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTVC and PBC), the Committee notes with interest from information provided by the APFTU that the Supreme Court has rendered a judgement dated 2 July 1997 restoring the right to organize and to bargain collectively for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and of the Civil Aviation Authority. Apparently, however, the Court indicated that, in the absence of statutory backing, these employees would not have the right to strike or participate in go-slows and that the Government could provide reasonable restrictions in this respect through statutory rules under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO). While welcoming the decision of the Supreme Court concerning the right to organize for these workers, the Committee would recall that the right to strike may only be restricted in respect of essential services, that is services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population, and in cases of acute national crisis. The Government may consider however in this regard the establishment, in consultation with the workers' organizations concerned, of a negotiated minimum service to meet basic needs or to ensure that facilities are operated safely. Furthermore, noting that these workers are excluded from the IRO and noting the indication in the Government's report that the recommendations of the tripartite task force on labour to restore trade union rights to PTVC and PBC employees were still being considered, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Supreme Court judgement as concerns the right to organize of these workers and to ensure that they are not prohibited from exercising the right to strike. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the Supreme Court judgement in this matter and to indicate the measures taken to ensure that these workers enjoy full rights under the Convention.

2. The Committee notes the comments made by the PWC according to which amendments have been made to the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1986, wherein section 27-B would now provide that a worker shall not be entitled to become a member or officer of any union in a banking company if he or she is not an employee of the bank in question. The Committee had noted from a communication received from the Government in this regard, that the purpose of the amendment in the banking companies Ordinance was to control disruptive activities of disgruntled elements in the interest of the economy. The amendment in no case contains workers' rights of association and collective bargaining; the workers are free to bargain with the management. The Government has, however, held meetings with workers' representatives at the highest levels to redress their genuine grievances and to meet their valid demands. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 117 of its General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it indicates that provisions which require all candidates for trade union office to belong to the respective occupation, enterprise or production are contrary to the guarantees set forth in Article 3 of the Convention and infringe the organization's right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. The Committee suggests in this respect that the legislation may be made more flexible either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to further amend this legislation so as to ensure that workers have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom along the lines mentioned above.

II. The Committee recalls that its previous observations referred also to the following discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention:

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and section 4 of the Export Processing Zones (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

-- exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision)); restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

-- denial to minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

-- exclusion from the definition of workers in the IRO, and thus of the right to join a trade union, of persons employed in an administrative or managerial capacity whose wages exceed 800 rupees per month (when the national minimum wage was fixed at 1,500 in 1995);

-- artificial promotions used as an anti-union tactic in the banking and finance sector;

-- denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals; and -- denial of the right to organize of forestry workers and railway employees.

As concerns the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Committee had noted in its previous comments the Government's statement to the 1996 Conference Committee that the list of services prohibited from strike by virtue of this Act had been reduced to eight. The Government added that recommendations made by the national tripartite task force on labour to delete certain other services from the list were submitted to the Cabinet for approval. Noting with concern that, by virtue of section 7 of the Essential Services Act, any person working in a service deemed to be essential under the Act who participates in a strike shall be liable to up to one-year's imprisonment, the Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report the list of services presently covered by the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and to indicate any developments with respect to the task force recommendations to further restrict this list.

Given that the Government has provided no new information on these matters for several years, the Committee, recalling that a direct contacts mission took place in January 1994 between a representative of the Director-General and the Government and that a national tripartite task force was established at that time with a wide mandate on labour and industrial relations issues, urges the Government to ensure that substantial progress is made in ensuring that its national legislation and practice are brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the very near future, taking into consideration the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, and to provide detailed information in this regard in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, as well as the detailed information supplied by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1995. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Pakistan Railway Employees Union (PREM).

I. The Committee's previous observations referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation;

- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980 and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

- exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision)); restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

- prohibition on minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

- artificial promotions used as an anti-union tactic in the banking and finance sector;

- denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals.

1. As regards Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTVC and PBC), the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee that the recommendation of the tripartite Task Force on Labour to allow the restoration of trade union rights to employees of the PTVC and the PBC is under active consideration by the Cabinet. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that trade union rights will be restored to the above employees and requests the Government to inform it of the Cabinet decision on this matter in its next report.

2. As regards the granting of trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs), the Government once again refers to the Export Processing Zones Authority (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982, which regulate conditions of employment in EPZs and provide benefits which are better than those provided to other workers. The Government reiterates that, at present, only one EPZ has been established which employs fewer than 6,000 workers, 80 per cent of which are women. Moreover, since the cultural climate in Pakistan is not in favour of unionization of female workers due to social taboos, those workers do not demand that trade union rights under the IRO be restored to them. There is, however, no ban on their forming any association. The Government adds that the earlier recommendation of the tripartite Task Force to the effect that it would be desirable to apply labour laws uniformly without discrimination to all organizations is being actively considered by the Cabinet Committee. The Committee expresses the firm hope that trade union rights under the IRO will be restored to workers in EPZs and requests the Government to inform it of the Cabinet Committee's decision in this regard in its next report.

3. Regarding the exclusion of civil servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Government reiterates that there is no bar on the formation of associations of different categories of employees. However, they are subject to certain restrictions to avoid the carrying out of activities that are harmful to the basic aims and objectives of their establishments, such as the engagement in political activities, the issuance of periodical publications or publishing representations of their members without prior government approval. The Committee had already noted these same restrictions in the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules in its previous comments. It would once again recall that such restrictions are incompatible with the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without government interference in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 86 of its General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it indicates that provisions stipulating that different organizations must be established for each category of public servants (for example, where trade union membership is reserved to public servants in the same unit) are incompatible with the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee has, however, considered it admissible for first-level organizations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers provided that their organizations are not also restricted to employees of any particular ministry, department or service, and that they may freely join federations or confederations of their own choosing, like organizations of workers in the private sector.

As the Government has still not supplied the requested information relating to the size and activities of the existing associations of civil servants, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply this information with its next report.

4. With respect to restrictions on the right to strike, the Government reiterates that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952 is only applied to employment organizations which meet defence needs or concern the life of the community. The main concern is to ensure the economic viability of national priority programmes and it is, therefore, in the national interest to ensure that industrial action does not continue for an indefinite period.

The Committee notes the Government representative's statement to the Conference Committee that the existing list of establishments under the Act have been reduced from 16 to eight, and that the list would be regularly re-examined. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the tripartite Task Force recommended the withdrawal of application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to certain other establishments currently covered by the Act and that its recommendations were submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the Cabinet decision on this matter in its next report.

5. As regards the right of representation of minority unions, the Government reiterates that it has taken note of the Committee's previous comments and is taking all possible measures in consonance with the Convention to protect the rights of minority unions accordingly.

6. With regard to the Committee's previous comments on artificial promotions in the banking and financial sector, as well as in the steel industry, designed to undermine the membership of workers' unions, the Government indicates that if in effect false promotions occurred whereby the employees received higher wages but no corresponding change of task to a supervisory role, these employees could resort to the unfair labour practice provisions of section 22(A)(8)(g) of the IRO, and eventually proceed to the labour court for redress. In this respect, the Committee recalls that section 2(viii) of the IRO excludes from the definition of "worker" any person "who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 800 rupees per mensum". As the report of the direct contacts mission to Pakistan indicates that the minimum wage is 1,500 rupees, the definition of "worker" is meaningless. The Committee would once again draw the Government's attention to paragraph 66 of its General Survey wherein it has considered that legislation which allows for the granting of fictitious promotions to unionized workers without actually according them management responsibilities, thereby effectively placing them in the category of so-called "employers" to whom the right to organize is not permitted, is not in accordance with the Convention, since the end result is to deny the right of association and artificially reduce the size of the bargaining unit. It therefore requests the Government to amend the definition of "worker" so as to prevent the undermining of workers' organizations through artificial promotions and to grant all workers, without distinction whatsoever, the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest from the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee, that the tripartite Task Force on Labour has considered broadening the definition of "workman" in order to solve the problem. The Committee requests the Government to inform it, in its next report, of the Task Force's recommendations in this regard to the Cabinet Committee.

7. Regarding the denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals, the Government reiterates that the application of the Essential Services Act to these workers does not deprive them of the right to organize. Hence, they have the legal right to form associations. In addition, and according to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee, although government hospital employees are not covered by the IRO, employees of private hospitals and clinics could form their own unions under the IRO. The Committee would note however that all hospital employees are excluded from the IRO under section 1(3)(f), which does not make a distinction between public and private sector hospitals. It therefore once again requests the Government to supply information on the legislative provisions actually in force which ensure hospital employees the right to establish and join organizations of hospital employees for furthering and defending their professional interests, as provided for in the Convention, and to indicate the size and activities of the associations in this sector.

II. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided its observations to the Committee's previous comments on the denial of the right to organize of forestry workers. It must therefore recall its previous comments thereon which were as follows:

The Committee notes the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1696 (see 292nd Report of the Committee) concerning the refusal to register a union of forestry workers because they were not covered by the definition of the term "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 as they were considered to be civil servants. As recalled above, the right to establish and join an organization of one's own choosing applies to all workers "without distinction whatsoever" and therefore also applies to employees of the State. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that employees of the State in general and forestry workers in particular are granted the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

III. The Committee notes with concern that the most recent comments made by the Pakistan Railway Employees' Union (PREM) concern a notification dated 12 September 1996 from the Railway Board debarring some more employees from the purview of the IRO and warning them of disciplinary action in the event that they resort to trade union activities. In previous comments, the Committee had noted that a ministerial circular which classified most railway lines as Ministry of Defence Lines and banned railway employees from taking part in any trade union activities had been the subject of a complaint examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in November 1994 (295th Report) and that the Government had, at that time, indicated that the circular in question had been challenged before the Lahore High Court. The Government states that the Court dismissed PREM's petition on the basis of the sensitive position of Defence Lines. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of this Convention provides that the right to establish and join an organization of one's own choosing applies to all workers "without distinction whatsoever" and notes that the preliminary report of the tripartite Task Force on Labour recommends that this circular be withdrawn to enable railway workers to exercise their right of unionization without any restrictions or conditions. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in restoring this right to railway workers.

IV. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to take advantage of the technical assistance of the ILO in order to bring, at an early date, its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, in particular, as regards the right of all workers - including employees of the PTVC and the PBC, workers in export processing zones, public servants, hospital workers, railway employees and forestry workers - to establish and join organization of their own choosing without previous authorization, and as regards the right to strike. It asks the Government to report in detail on any progress made in this regard.

More generally, the Committee regrets to note that despite the undertaking of a direct contacts mission between a representative of the Director-General and the Government in January 1994, as well as the establishment of a tripartite Task Force on Labour which drew up recommendations very similar to those of the mission on amendments to be made to the legislation, the Government has still not taken the appropriate steps to give effect to the above-mentioned recommendations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that substantial progress is made in amending national legislation and practice concerning the issues raised by the Committee in the very near future.

While the Committee was sitting, it received the Government's report which it will examine at its next meeting.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report and the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 1994. It further notes the comments made by the Pakistan Railway Employees Union (PREM) dated 12 April 1994 and the conclusions reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1696, 1726 and 1771 (292nd, 294th and 295th Reports of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its March, June and November 1994 Sessions respectively).

I. The Committee's previous observations referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-- ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation;

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980 and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

-- exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision)); restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

-- prohibition on minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

-- artificial promotions used as an anti-union tactic in the banking and finance sector;

-- denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals.

1. As concerns Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations (PTV and PBC), the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that the tripartite Task Force on Labour recommends that the relevant provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) be omitted to allow these workers to form trade unions and carry out trade union activities. The Committee therefore expresses the hope that trade union rights will be restored to the above employees at an early date.

2. As regards the granting of trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs), the Government refers in its report to the Export Processing Zones Authority (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982, which regulate conditions of employment in EPZs and provide benefits which are better than those provided to other workers. It is further indicated that, at present, there is only one EPZ employing fewer than 6,000 workers, 80 per cent of which are female. The Government adds that, since the cultural climate in Pakistan is not in favour of unionization of female workers due to social taboos, those workers do not demand that trade union rights under the IRO be restored to them. There is, however, no ban on their forming any association and the Government is considering the matter to see how to apply labour laws equally to all enterprises without discrimination.

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1726 (294th Report, June 1994) concerning the non-application of labour legislation to EPZs and its recommendation that the 1992 Finance Act, the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and the Export Processing Zones Authority (Control of Employment) Rules be amended to ensure the right to organize for all workers. The Committee notes with interest the recommendation of the tripartite Task Force that it would be desirable to apply labour laws uniformly without discrimination to all organizations since labour laws have a positive role to play in maintaining industrial peace, creating a favourable climate to harmonize the relationship between employers and employees and helping in increasing productivity and production.

3. Regarding the exclusion of civil servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Government has indicated in its report that there is no bar on the formation of associations of different categories of employees, however they are subject to certain restrictions to avoid the carrying out of activities that are harmful to the basic aims and objectives of their establishments, such as the engagement in political activities, the issuance of periodical publications or publishing representations of their members without prior government approval. The Committee had already noted these same restrictions in the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules in its previous comments. It would once again recall that such restrictions are incompatible with the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without government interference in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 86 of the 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining wherein it indicates that provisions stipulating that different organizations must be established for each category of public servants (for example, where trade union membership is reserved to public servants in the same unit) are incompatible with the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee has, however, considered it admissible for first-level organizations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers provided that their organizations are not also restricted to employees of any particular ministry, department or service, and that they may freely join federations or confederations of their own choosing, like organizations of workers in the private sector.

As the Government has still not supplied the requested information relating to the size and activities of the existing associations of civil servants, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply this information with its next report.

4. With respect to restrictions on the right to strike, the Government indicates in its report that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952 is only applied to employment organizations which meet defence needs or concern the life of the community. The main concern is to ensure the economic viability of national priority programmes and it is, therefore, in the national interest to ensure that industrial action does not continue for an indefinite period.

The Committee notes with interest the Government representative's statement at the Conference Committee to the effect that the present Government had decided not to apply the Essential Services Act to any new establishment and to redefine the Act with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Convention. He added that the existing list of establishments under the Act would be gradually reduced to a minimum; three establishments having already been removed from the list. Furthermore, the Committee notes with interest that the tripartite Task Force recommends that the definition of essential services be brought into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

5. As concerns the right of representation of minority unions, the Government states that it has taken note of the Committee's previous comments and is taking all possible measures in consonance with the Convention to protect the rights of minority unions accordingly.

6. With regard to artificial promotions in the banking and financial sector, as well as in the steel industry, designed to undermine the membership of workers' unions (see Cases Nos. 1534 and 1771), the Committee recalls that section 2(viii) of the IRO excludes from the definition of "worker" any person "who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 800 rupees per mensum". As the report of the direct contacts mission to Pakistan indicates that the minimum wage is 1,500 rupees, the definition of "worker" is meaningless. The Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 66 of its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining wherein it has considered that legislation which allows for the granting of fictitious promotions to unionized workers without actually according them management responsibilities, thereby effectively placing them in the category of so-called "employers" to whom the right to organize is not permitted, is not in accord with the Convention, since the end result is to deny the right of association and artificially reduce the size of the bargaining unit. It therefore requests the Government to amend the definition of "worker" so as to prevent the undermining of workers' organizations through artificial promotions and to grant all workers, without distinction whatsoever, the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

7. Regarding the denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals, the Government has indicated in its report that the application of the Essential Services Act to these workers does not mean that they do not have the right to organize and, hence, they have the legal right to form associations. The Committee would note however that hospital employees are excluded from the IRO under section 1(3)(f). It therefore requests the Government to supply information on the legislative provisions actually in force which ensure hospital employees the right to establish and join organizations of hospital employees for furthering and defending their professional interests, as provided in the Convention, and to indicate the size and activities of the associations in this sector.

II. The Committee also notes with concern that the following categories of workers have recently been denied the right to organize:

1. Railway employees. The Committee notes that the comments made by the Pakistan Railway Employees' Union concern a ministerial circular which classifies most railway lines as Ministry of Defence Lines and bans railway employees from taking part in any trade union activities. It notes that this circular has been the subject of a complaint examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in November 1994 (295th Report) and that the Government had, at that time, indicated that the circular in question had been challenged before the Lahore High Court and was still sub judice. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of this Convention provides that the right to establish and join an organization of one's own choosing applies to all workers "without distinction whatsoever" and notes with interest that the preliminary report of the tripartite Task Force on Labour recommends that this circular be withdrawn to enable railway workers to exercise their right of unionization without any restrictions or conditions. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in restoring this right to railway workers.

2. Forestry workers. The Committee notes the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1696 concerning the refusal to register a union of forestry workers because they were not covered by the definition of the term "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 as they were considered to be civil servants. As recalled above, the right to establish and join an organization of one's own choosing applies to all workers "without distinction whatsoever" and therefore also applies to employees of the State. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that employees of the State in general and forestry workers in particular are granted the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

III. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to take advantage of the technical assistance of the ILO in order to bring, at an early date, its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, in particular, as concerns the right of all workers - including employees of the PTC and the PBC, workers in export processing zones, public servants, hospital workers, railway employees and forestry workers - to establish and join organization of their own choosing without previous authorization and as concerns the right to strike. It asks the Government to report in detail on any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report of 12 June 1993 and the communication from the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) of 11 October 1993. The Committee also notes the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 1993, which eventually led to a direct contacts mission between a representative of the Director-General and the Government which took place from 15 to 22 January 1994.

The Committee's previous observations referred to discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation;

- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

- exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision));

- restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

- prohibition on minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

- comments from the PNFTU alleging the artificial promotion of union activists as an anti-union tactic;

- denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals.

The Committee takes note of the report of the direct contacts mission, during which all these issues were discussed with the authorities and the various workers' and employers' organizations. It further notes that the Government wishes to continue receiving technical assistance from the Office on these matters.

The Committee also notes that a tripartite task force was established recently, with a wide mandate on labour and industrial relations issues. The Committee hopes that this initiative, together with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission will soon lead to substantial progress on the above-mentioned issues, for which the Office may provide technical assistance.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in 1992. It also takes note of the communication from the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) dated 8 July 1992 as well as the communications from the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) dated 8 July 1992, 20 September 1992 and 3 January 1993:

The Committee's previous observations referred to discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation;

- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

- exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 2(viii) (special provision));

- restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

- prohibition on minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

- comments from the PNFTU alleging the promotion of union activists as an anti-union tactic.

- denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals.

1. The Government states that although attempts are being made at the highest level to restore trade union rights to employees of the Pakistan Television and Broadcasting Corporations, difficulties were being encountered in the interministerial consultations. The Committee trusts that trade union rights will be restored to the above employees very soon and requests the Government to send information on this matter in its next report.

2. As regards the granting of trade union rights in export processing zones, the Government indicates that these were set up to boost industrialization and to enable workers and employers to work together in an environment of industrial peace. Since the work in these zones is progressing satisfactorily and since there has been no complaint from either party, the Government does not consider it advisable to disturb the status quo. The Committee would recall that these restrictions are incompatible with Convention No. 87 which should apply to these zones as it does to other parts of the country. Moreover, even if there has been no complaint from either parties, the Committee would point out that the parties must have the possibility of exercising their rights under the Convention if they so wish, without being unduly hampered by legal restrictions.

Furthermore, according to the communications of the PNFTU and the APFTU, not only is the Government maintaining the status quo in export processing zones but it has declared on several occasions that it would exclude the applicability of labour laws to workers in the Special Industrial Zones which had been set up recently by the Government in different parts of the country under its "Foreign Investors' Scheme". The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the contents of these communications in its next report.

3. Regarding the exclusion of civil servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Government had claimed previously that there were 25 associations of civil servants which could act in a wide range of ways for the defence of their members' interests. The Committee would request the Government to furnish information relating to the size and activities of these associations in its next report.

The Committee had also noted from section 28 of the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules that associations of public servants were subject to serious restrictions incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: membership confined to civil servants serving in one functional unit (see the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 126); requirement that all office-bearers be members of that association (op. cit., para. 158); ban on engaging in political activities, limiting activities to matters of personal interest of their members, ban on involvement in the individual cases of their members, ban on issuing periodical publications or publishing representations on behalf of their members without government sanction, and the requirement of prior approval of the approving authority (the employer) of their by-laws (see op. cit., paras. 195, 68 and 152 respectively).

The Government states in its report that at present there is no bar on the formation of associations of different categories of employees. The Committee would request the Government to send a copy of the amending legislation on this point. It would point out, however, that this measure addresses only one of the above restrictions. The Committee therefore asks the Government to inform it of measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on the other points mentioned above. It further requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether similar restrictions exist in other provinces.

4. With respect to the restrictions on recourse to strikes, the Government indicates that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 is not applicable to the Post and Telegraph Services, Railways and Airways and Ports except for those employees who load and unload goods at the Port of Karachi. While noting this point, the Committee observes that section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 enables the Government to prohibit any strike, before or after its commencement, where the dispute involves "public utility services" within the meaning of the Schedule to the Ordinance. While the Committee agrees that most of the services listed in the schedule accord with its definition of essential services, namely services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (op. cit., para. 214), it must repeat that it has consistently considered that oil production and distribution, the post and telegraph services, railways and airways (except for air traffic controllers), and ports (all of which appear in the Schedule) are not as such within this definition. It accordingly again asks the Government to amend the Schedule.

5. So far as the right of representation of minority unions is concerned, the Government reiterates that if a minority union is allowed to have a dialogue with the employers in the presence of the elected representatives of the workers, it would severely undermine the importance of the elected representatives (i.e. the bargaining agent). It adds that the workers themselves are against such a move. The Committee would point out that the right of minority unions to represent their own members in individual grievances does not imply an undermining of the importance of the bargaining agents, since the function of minority unions would be limited to representing their members in individual grievances. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take measures so as to enable minority unions to represent their members in these specific circumstances.

6. The Committee noted in its previous observation that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1534, examined allegations from the PNFTU and other union organizations identical to the comments made by the PNFTU in the context of the present Convention, namely that a number of foreign-owned companies in the banking and financial sector were giving false promotions to their employees so as to remove them from the category of "workman" in section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and place them in the "employer" category, thus denying their right to belong to the same union as workers. The Committee on Freedom of Association found that these staff movements were clearly designed to undermine the membership of workers' unions, some of which had been severely affected in practice and called on the Government to take measures to strengthen the application of the protective provisions in the Ordinance so as to prevent employers from weakening workers' unions through artificial promotions. The present Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous explanations, namely that section 15(i) provides protection against anti-union acts and that, if these were in effect false promotions since the employees received higher wages but not the corresponding change of task to a supervisory role, the employees could use the unfair labour practice provisions of section 22(A)(8)(g) and eventually go to the labour courts for redress. Noting that the Government has not yet supplied the statistics on the "employers'" organizations which might be formed by the promoted workers, the Committee considers that the Government should strengthen the Ordinance as suggested above, and asks it to inform it of any measures taken or envisaged in this connection.

7. Regarding the denial of the right to form trade unions for employees in public and private sector hospitals, the Government states that these employees have been excluded from the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the greater interests of the patients and the ailing community, and that if these employees were given normal trade union rights they would go on strike at the smallest pretext. The Committee would stress that the right to organize does not necessarily imply the right to strike which can be restricted or prohibited in essential services such as hospitals. It therefore requests the Government to restore to these employees the right to form trade unions and to negotiate collectively their terms and conditions of employment.

The Committee notes with interest that contacts are taking place between the Government and the Office in view of providing technical assistance to the Government. The Committee trusts that this assistance will enable the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period 30 June 1990 and the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee in 1991. It also notes the conclusions reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1534 (278th Report, paragraphs 451 to 472, and 281st Report, paragraphs 160 to 173, approved in May-June 1991 and February 1992, respectively) and the Government's reply to the comments previously made by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU), as well as the comments made by the All Union Pakistan Trade Union Council dated 25 June 1991 and the Government's observation thereon supplied in letters dated 5 October 1991 and 29 January 1992.

The Committee's previous observations referred to inconsistencies between the national legislation and various Articles of the Convention on the following points:

- ban on trade union membership and activities for employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) (section 10 of the PIAC Act, 1956);

- denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, and section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982);

- exclusion of public servants of grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 2(viii)(special provision));

- restrictions on recourse to strikes (sections 32(2) and 33(1) of the Ordinance);

- prohibition on minority unions from representing their members in relation to individual grievances;

- comments from the PNFTU alleging the promotion of union activists as an anti-union tactic.

The Committee also notes that, according to the All Union Pakistan Trade Union Council, employees in private and public sector hospitals are denied the right to form trade unions.

1. The Committee notes with interest that section 10 of the PIAC Act has been amended to repeal the ban on trade union membership and activities by airlines employees. It notes, however, from the Conference discussions, that a similar ban applies to employees of the Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation and that, according to the Government representative, draft legislation restoring trade union rights there was to have been passed by the National Assembly at the end of 1991. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to confirm that the draft was passed and to supply a copy of the amending legislation.

2. The Government states that export processing zones were set up to boost industrialisation and to enable workers and employers to work together in an environment of industrial peace, and since this has been largely achieved, the 1980 Act has not been amended; however, it gives the assurance that all unreasonable restrictions on the right to organise will be removed. The Committee welcomes this development. It nevertheless reminds the Government that these restrictions are not consistent with the requirements of the Convention. It asks the Government to transmit any legislation amending the Act and Rules in question.

3. As for the granting of trade union rights to senior civil servants, the Government states that since they are engaged in the administration of the State they are not covered by the Industrial Relations Ordinance; there are, however, 25 associations of civil servants which, it claims, can act in a wide range of ways for the defence of their members' interests. The Committee notes from section 28 of the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, amended in 1990 and mentioned in a previous direct request, that associations of public servants are subject to serious restrictions incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: membership confined to civil servants serving in one functional unit (see the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 126); requirement that all office-bearers be members of that association (op. cit., paragraph 158); bans on engaging in political activities, limiting activities to matters of personal interest of their members, ban on involvement in the individual cases of their members, ban on issuing periodical publications or publishing representations on behalf of their members without government sanction and the requirement of prior approval of the approving authority (the employer) of their by-laws (see, respectively, op. cit., paragraphs 195, 68, 152).

Noting that the Government has not replied to its query whether similar restrictions exist in other provinces, the Committee cannot but repeat that senior and provincial civil servants - like all other workers - should have the right to form and join organisations of their own choosing, organisations which should be free to act in the defence of the occupational interests of their members. If it is felt that joint membership with other types of government servants is undesirable due to the special characteristics or functions of a particular group or to avoid conflicts of interest, provisions so forbidding joint membership should ensure that such workers have the right to form their own organisations and that the categories of concerned staff are not so broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the government services are weakened by depriving them of a substantial proportion of potential membership (op. cit., paragraph 131). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to inform it of measures taken or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

4. Regarding the schedule of eight public utility services in which strikes are banned, the Government is of the view that if any such service is disrupted this is likely to endanger the health and safety of the society or part of the population; it adds that the list is already a bare minimum and if any service was deleted thus allowing strikes or lockouts, this would certainly affect the interest of the community as a whole. The Committee agrees that most of the services listed in the schedule accord with its definition of essential services where strikes may be restricted or even prohibited, namely services where an interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (op. cit., paragraph 214); it must repeat, however, that it has consistently considered that oil production and distribution, the post and telegraph service, railways and airways (except for air traffic controllers), and ports are not within this definition and accordingly again asks the Government to amend the schedule.

5. As regards the rights of representation of minority unions, the Government repeats that if a minority union is permitted to dialogue with the employers in the presence of the elected workers' representatives (the bargaining agent) this would undermine the very existence of the elected representatives; it adds that workers themselves have been agitating against any such practice publicly and during the tripartite discussions on the issue, feeling that workers' rights are infringed when employers can establish contact with minority unelected unions. The Committee would emphasise that the only rights of minority unions that it is advocating are those of representing their own members in individual grievances, not an undermining of the bargaining parties; by virtue of the right of workers to join organisations of their own choosing, as set forth in Article 2 of the Convention, the members of unions should have the right as regards their individual claims, even if their union is a minority one, to be represented by their own organisation (op. cit., paragraph 141). The Committee therefore again asks the Government to consider amending its legislation so as to enable minority unions to represent their members in these specific circumstances.

6. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1534, examined allegations from the PNFTU and other union organisations identical to the comments made by the PNFTU in the context of the present Convention, namely that a number of foreign-owned companies in the bank and finance sector were giving false promotions to their employees so as to remove them from the category of "workman" in section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and place them in the "employer" category, thus denying their right to belong to the same union as workers. The Committee on Freedom of Association found that these staff movements were clearly designed to undermine the membership of workers' unions, some of which had been severely affected in practice and called on the Government to take measures to strengthen the application of the protective provisions in the Ordinance so as to prevent employers from weakening workers' unions through artificial promotions. The present Committee notes the Government's explanations that section 15(i) provides protection against anti-union acts and that, if these were in effect false promotions since the employees received higher wages but not the corresponding change of task to a supervisory role, the employees could use the unfair labour practice provisions of section 22(A)(8)(g) and eventually go to the labour courts for redress. Noting that the Government has not yet supplied the statistics requested in its previous observation on the "employers'" organisations which might be formed by the promoted workers, the Committee considers that the Government should strengthen the Ordinance as suggested above, and asks it to inform it of any measures taken or envisaged in this connection.

7. Regarding the denial of the right to form trade unions and to strike of employees in private and public sector hospitals, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it is conscious of the need of constant care and service to the sick, injured and physically handicapped population so that it does not consider it appropriate to allow the members of the medical profession to form trade unions and to go on strike though these rights are available to other workers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Committee, while accepting that private and public sector hospitals fall within the category of essential services where the right to strike can be denied, asks the Government to restore to these employees the right to form trade unions and to negotiate collectively their terms and conditions of employment.

In view of the fact that the Committee has been commenting on many of these points for some considerable time, it trusts that the Government will make every effort to take the measures to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention as soon as possible.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in response to its previous direct request, and has made reference to certain of that information in its observation.

2. The attention of the Committee has been drawn to the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules Amendments Rules 1990. Inter alia, these rules inserted a new section 28 in the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966. This new provision appears to give rise to a number of problems in relation to the application of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

(a) The Committee has taken the view that it is permissible for first-level organisations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers, on condition, however, that their organisations are not also restricted to employees of any particular ministry, department or service, and that the first-level organisations, like those of workers in the private sector, may freely join the federations and confederations of their own choosing. Provisions stipulating that different organisations must be established for each category of public servants are incompatible with the right of workers to establish and join organisations of their own choosing (General Survey, 1983, paragraph 126).

The provisions of section 28(1)(a) and (c), confining membership of service associations to the government servants serving in one functional unit and preventing the association from affiliating or associating itself with any other association belonging to any other cadre, do not appear to be compatible with those principles.

(b) Article 3(1) of the Convention states that:

Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.

Whilst Article 3(2) enjoins the public authorities to refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

The provisions of section 28(1)(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j):

(1) preventing the association from associating itself or seeking support from a political party or engaging in political activities;

(2) confining its activities to matters of personal interest of the government servants whom it represents;

(3) preventing it from involving itself in individual cases of its members;

(4) engaging in activities which its members are individually prohibited from engaging in;

(5) supporting any candidate in an election whether in Pakistan or elsewhere;

(6) issuing or maintaining periodical publications except in accordance with and by general or special order of the Government;

(7) publishing any representation on behalf of its members without the Government's sanction; and

(8) compelling it to frame its by-laws with the previous approval of the approving authority, they being in fact the employer;

are clearly not in conformity with these guarantees.

(c) The requirement that all office-bearers of an association must be members of that association (section 28(1)(b)) does not appear to be compatible with the principles set out at paragraph 158 of the Committee's 1983 General Survey. In the Committee's opinion, it is necessary to make these provisions more flexible by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupations concerned and by exempting from occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organisation.

(d) The stipulation that associations must confine their activities to "matters of general interest of the government servants whom it represents", and that they must not involve themselves in "individual cases" of their members (section 28(1)(e)) appears to deny associations the right to exercise basic trade union functions, and as such is not compatible with the requirements of the Convention.

(e) The fact that an association may not represent the interests of its members unless "recognised" by the competent authority does not appear to be compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. The administrative authorities should not be able to refuse registration of a trade union organisation, the objective of which is to ensure the development of the social and economic well-being of all and each of its members.

3. The Committee cannot but express its concern at the adoption of a legislative provision which is in contravention of the Convention. Accordingly, it asks the Government to indicate in its next report what measures it intends to take to bring law and practice in the province of Sindh into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in general, and Articles 2 and 3 in particular. It also asks the Government to indicate whether there are similar restrictions upon the right to organise of public servants in other provinces, or at the federal level.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period to 30 June 1989, but has not received its report for the period to 30 June 1990. The Committee also notes the comments of the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) in communications dated 21 December 1989 and 24 February 1990. The Government has not sent any observations on these comments to the Committee.

In its 1989 observation, the Committee had referred to divergencies between the Convention and legislative provisions which deny certain workers the right to establish trade union organisations, restrict the right to strike, permit the supervision of trade union funds by the Registrar and limit the right of representation of minority unions.

Trade union rights - Pakistan International Airlines Corporation

In its report, the Government indicates that section 10 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 had been amended so as to enable workers employed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) to take part in trade union activities under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Committee notes with interest that the Government has now taken measures to remove the ban on trade union membership and activities at PIAC to which the Committee had been drawing attention for several years. It also asks the Government to send it a copy of the relevant legislation, as promised in its report.

Trade union rights - Senior public servants

In its 1989 observation, and on many previous occasions, the Committee expressed its concern about the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and, through a direct request, had asked the Government to provide certain further information as to the number of workers affected by this ban and as to the nature and activities of the associations to which, according to the Government, such officials were entitled to belong.

In its report the Government indicates that in 1986, 17,652 (9.39 per cent) out of a total of 187,925 federal public servants were classified as Grade 16 or above. It also indicates that the effect of this exclusion is to place senior public servants in the same position as managerial staff in the private sector. The Government has not, however, supplied the requested information as to the number, size and activities of the "associations" to which public servants of Grade 16 and above may belong. The Committee requests the Government to include this information in its next report.

Trade union rights - Export processing zones

In its 1989 observation, the Committee noted that on the basis of section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, the Government had entirely exempted all export processing zones from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, whilst section 4 of the Export Processing Zone (Control of Employment) Rules, 1982, deprived workers in such zones of the right to strike or to take other forms of industrial action. The Committee considered that these provisions are not consistent with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

In its report the Government indicates that it will give consideration to the possibility of removing these restrictions as part of its general policy of allowing full trade union activity in the country. It has not, however, supplied any subsequent information as to the outcome of its deliberations on this matter.

In the circumstances, the Committee must call upon the Government to keep it informed as to the steps it proposes to take to remove these restrictions on trade union membership and activity which are clearly incompatible with the requirements of the Convention.

Recourse to strikes

For some years the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to the fact that certain of the restrictions on recourse to strikes which are set out in sections 32 and 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance seem to interfere with the right to strike.

The Committee notes that section 32(2) of the Ordinance enables the Government to prohibit any strike or lock-out where it has lasted for more than 30 days, or where the Government is satisfied that continuance of the strike or lock-out is causing serious hardship to the community or is prejudicial to the national interest. Section 33(1) on the other hand enables the Government to prohibit any strike or lock-out, before or after its commencement, where the dispute is of "national importance" or involves "public utility services" within the meaning of the Schedule to the Ordinance. These restrictions appear to the Committee to go beyond what is necessary in order to maintain services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or the health of the whole or part of the population. It must, therefore, urge the Government to ensure that these provisions are amended so as to bring them into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Right of representation of minority unions

On a number of occasions the Committee has noted that workers in minority unions cannot be represented by the union of their choice in relation to individual grievances, and has pointed out to the Government that this situation is not compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government indicates that it knows of no case where a collective bargaining agent has refused to represent the interests of a member of a minority union - on the contrary, collective bargaining agents often give preference to the claims of members of minority unions with a view to encouraging them to switch allegiance. The Government does not, however, consider that it would be appropriate to permit minority unions to represent the individual interests of their members because to do so would be to jeopardise and destabilise the position of the collective bargaining agent.

The Committee notes the views of the Government on this matter, but must reiterate that full conformity with the requirements of the Convention means that members of minority unions should have the right to be represented by their own union in relation to their individual claims if they so choose.

Promotion of union activists as an anti-union tactic

The Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) alleges that a number of foreign-owned companies in the banking and financial services sector have been pursuing a policy of "promoting" their employees so as to remove them from the category of "workman" in section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and placing them instead in the category of "employer". According to the PNFTU, these "promotions" are purely formal in character and are designed to weaken the position of trade unions by virtue of the fact that under the Ordinance "employers" and "workers" may not belong to the same union.

The Committee has pointed out in the past that it is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention to deny managerial or supervisory employees the right to belong to the same trade unions as other workers. This is, however, subject to two provisos: first, that they have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests and, secondly, that the categories of managerial staff and employees in positions of confidence are not so broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the enterprise or branch of activity are weakened by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership (1983 General Survey, paragraph 131).

In order to enable it to make an informed assessment of the compatibility of section 2 of the Ordinance with the requirements of the Convention, the Committee would ask the Government to provide an indication of the proportion of the workforce who are regarded as being "employers" within the terms of that section. It also asks the Government to provide information as to the number and size of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such persons, and to provide its observations on the comments of the PNFTU in relation to this matter.

In view of the fact that the Committee has been commenting on many of these matters for many years, it expresses the firm hope that the Government will make every effort to take the measures which are necessary to give full effect to the Convention, and that it will do so in the near future.

[The Goverment is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions (PNFTU) sent comments on the implementation of the Convention in communications dated 21 December 1989 and 24 February 1990. According to these communications almost all multinational corporations which operate in Pakistan try to undermine union membership by offering "promotions" to union members and activists, without actually giving them managerial responsibilities. This then moves the workers into the category of "employers" as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and obliges them to resign from union membership.

In view of the fact that the Government has not yet responded to the comments of the PNFTU, the Committee considers that it would be more appropriate to deal with these questions after taking account of the observations of the Government at its next session. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government's report in reply to its previous observation and direct request has been received on 13 March 1990, during its sittings. The Committee will examine this report at its next session.